Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to take effective action to deal with anti-social behaviour from a tenant for over a year, including noise and harassment. I have found fault with the Council’s communication with Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to investigate his reports of a noise nuisance and homophobic abuse by a neighbour in line with procedures.
2. Mr X says this has affected his quality of life and his mental and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered Mr X’s complaint and the information he provided. I considered the Council’s response to our enquiries and the information it provided.
8. Mr X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. I acknowledge the substantive matters raised in Mr X’s complaint began several years prior to the period in question. With reference to paragraph 6 above, I am investigating the issues of the complaint from January 2021 to February 2022.
10. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
11. Mr X is a private tenant. In April 2021 he complained to the Council about private tenants (Ms Y and Miss Z) in another flat, causing alleged intentional noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. He said the disturbance was affecting his mental health and his ability to work. The Council did not respond to this email.
12. In July 2021 the Council held a meeting with other professionals to discuss reports of anti-social behaviour.
13. On 3 August 2021 Mr X contacted the Council. He said there had been an increase in noise and verbal abuse. Mr X said this behaviour continued to affect his physical and mental health. He also said that he had been reporting noise nuisance for a year and the Council had failed to take action.
14. The next day the Council responded to Mr X and was empathetic about the issues raised. The Council told Mr X that his email had been forwarded to the Council’s solicitors. It also confirmed that it had decided to apply for an injunction against one of the tenants. The Council agreed to keep Mr X updated.
15. A few days later Mr X contacted the Council again. He complained about loud noise from walls banging and screaming and shouting. Mr X said he was at risk of reduced mental and physical performance resulting from sleep loss. Mr X also queried whether the Council would offer compensation for affected parties. The Council did not respond to this email.
16. On 24 August 2021 Mr X submitted an online complaint regarding behaviours from the tenants. The Council noted Mr X’s concerns and advised him to contact his landlord, with whom the Council was already in extensive contact about the issue.
17. Between April 2021 and February 2022, the Council received 22 reports of noise nuisance from Ms Y and Miss Z’s property. Only some of these complaints were made by Mr X. The Council’s records show that it attempted to contact the parties who made the report to arrange a visit, but calls were unanswered. On other occasions where contact was made, the service was advised that any noise had ceased, or officers gave the parties advice. The Council made one attendance visit and no noise was observed.

Analysis

18. The Council’s response to our enquiries contained sensitive information including details of third parties which means it needs to remain confidential. It also means I cannot refer to this information in this draft decision. My investigation is therefore limited to the Council’s interaction with Mr X.
19. The Council has provided evidence to support and explain the actions it took in dealing with reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour between January 2021 and February 2022. The Council’s records show it was attempting to resolve the situation and its legal team was involved and I cannot identify any fault in those actions.
20. I do however consider the Council’s communication with Mr X was poor at times. I acknowledge that there was limited information it could provide to Mr X due to the confidential nature of much of its actions regarding Ms Y and Miss Z. But the Council failed to respond to Mr X’s concerns in April and in August which led Mr X to make a formal complaint. The Council should apologise to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Within one month of my final decision the Council will apologise to Mr X for the faults identified in paragraph 20 above.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman