Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to complaints about neighbour nuisance and noise in a social housing block. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action against neighbouring tenants in his block of flats rented by a social housing landlord. He says the tenants are sub-letting the property and flats are being used as Airbnb locations against the tenancy agreements with the landlord. This resulted in damage to the building communal areas and noise from party and music activity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or

further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by the complainant.
5. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says tenants of a neighbouring flat in his block sub-let their home and Airbnb visitors disturb him by making noise from parties and playing loud music at late hours. He also says they have caused criminal damage to areas of the building. He reported the matter to his housing association landlord, the Council and to the Metropolitan Police but is unhappy with the responses from all three authorities.
7. Mr X reported the noise nuisance to the Council’s Nuisance Control Team who advised him to make recordings via the Team’s online app. Mr X provided evidence on several occasions but the Council concluded that the duration and intensity of the noise did not meet the threshold for a statutory nuisance.
8. Mr X’s complaints were also referred to the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour team. Because the matters related to damage to social housing property and the behaviour of its tenants breaching their legal agreements with the landlord. It considered that the landlord was better placed to deal with these maters through enforcement of tenancy powers. The Council says the landlord has advised it that the matter has been referred to its legal team for action.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. It is not our role to say whether the noise complained about is a nuisance in law or whether action must be taken to reduce it. Only a qualified officer can decide if there is a statutory nuisance present based on the evidence available. We have no jurisdiction not investigate the actions of social housing landlords as this falls within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman service.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to complaints about neighbour nuisance and noise in a social housing block. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman