Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council responded to her reports of ongoing anti-social noise. The Council was not at fault in how it decided the noise was not anti-social. However, it was at fault for poor communication with Ms X. The Council will apologise and remind its staff they should promptly communicate the decision to close anti-social behaviour investigations to the complainant.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council about how the Council responded to her reports of excessive noise from her neighbours. She said this was distressing, harmed her mental well-being and affected her use of her home.
2. Ms X also complained the Council allowed the neighbours property to become statutory overcrowded which contributed to the noise.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the issues set out in paragraph one. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 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)
6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. When Ms X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council confirmed it had not yet issued its stage two response and would not be able to start investigating her complaint until late September. That would have been an unacceptable delay and for that reason, I exercised discretion to investigate.
8. 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

9. I have considered:
• all the information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
10. Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Anti-social behaviour

11. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
• conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
12. Whether something is ASB is a somewhat subjective decision. Council's typically have trained officers who consider whether, based on the evidence received, the issue complained meets the threshold for ASB.
13. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour. ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation. This can include using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Council's anti-social behaviour policy

14. The Council's policy says it will investigate all reports of ASB. The policy says the Council will explain to the person who reported the behaviour when they close a case and give its reasons for doing so.

Council's complaints procedure

15. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. It will respond at stage one within ten working days. If they remain unhappy, complainants can ask for a stage two response and will receive a response in 20 working days.

What happened

16. Ms X lives in a block of flats. Records show that in October and November 2021 Ms X made five online reports about excessive noise coming from her neighbour’s flat. The Council took the following action in response:
• it visited the block of flats, within an hour of one of Ms X’s reports. It heard children playing but did not think the noise was ASB;
• it spoke to Ms X 45 minutes after she reported noise but she said it had stopped by then; and
• it sent a letter to the neighbour asking them to try and reduce the noise.
17. Ms X complained in late November 2021. She said the noise had not decreased since the Council sent its letter. The Council treated the complaint as a service request and visited outside the property again. It heard general household noise but did not think it was ASB. It tried to call Ms X but was unable to speak to her.
18. Because she had not heard from the Council, Ms X submitted another complaint. The Council replied January 2022. It said:
• as it had not been able to talk to her after its visit in November, it should have treated the case as a complaint. The Council apologised and offered Ms X £25 in recognition of the mistake;
• in response to its warning letter, Ms X’s neighbour said they had several children and it was not possible to be silent at all times; and
• the Council had concluded there was no evidence the noise was ASB.
19. Ms X accepted the £25 but remained unhappy and asked for a stage two response in mid-January. She said the noise was excessive; screaming, crying and shouting. She disputed the Council had properly considered the noise because it had visited after the noise stopped and officers stood outside the neighbours flat, not inside hers.
20. The Council told me its officer did not try and hear the noise within the property because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Officers only enter properties if it is necessary for the investigation.
21. The Council sent Ms X a stage one review response in February 2022. It said an officer had recently visited her neighbour. The neighbour said the walls in the property were thin and they could hear Ms X too. The Council explained it had heard the noise of children laughing and talking during its visits in late November but that did not constitute ASB.
22. The Council visited Ms X a few days later and recommended she and the neighbour attend mediation to try and resolve their differences. It also told Ms X she could use its phone app to record the noise for it to consider.
23. Ms X contacted the Council several times about the noise between February and April. The Council visited the property within 30 minutes of one report and did not observe the party Ms X reported. Records show Ms X contacted the Council four times to speak to somebody but did not receive a response.
24. In early March 2022, Ms X asked for a stage two response. She said she was still waiting for it to approve her account for the phone app so had been unable to make any recordings. The Council responded to say it had a large number of stage two requests and would not be able to start investigating immediately. It said it would tell her when it began the stage two. It did not contact Ms X about the complaint again.
25. A month later, the Council gave Ms X access to its system for reporting noise online. Between April and June 2022, when she moved out of the property, Ms X says she submitted around 50 noise recordings using the app. The Council told me it considered the recordings, but the noise did not constitute ASB.
26. Ms X contacted the Ombudsman in late April and the Council told us it would aim to begin to investigate at stage two by late September.

Findings

Anti-social behaviour

27. The Council was not at fault in how it investigated Ms X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. It took appropriate steps by speaking to her to hear the noise, visiting the property several times, talking to her neighbour to discuss the source of the noise and, after the noise complaints persisted, gave Ms X access to its app so she could submit recordings.
28. None of the evidence the Council reviewed persuaded its officers the noise was excessive enough to constitute ASB. Ms X feels the Council's investigation was flawed because it only heard the noise from outside the flats. The Council has explained that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, its officers only enter properties if they deem it necessary; they did not in Ms X’s case. This was the officer’s professional judgement and I have seen no evidence to question it. In any event, officers listened to Ms X’s recordings from within her property and did not find any of the noise was anti-social behaviour. The Council was not at fault.
29. However, the Council was at fault for delay in giving Ms X access to its app to allow her to make the recordings. Once the Council told Ms X about the app, it should have given her access to it promptly. Instead, Ms X had to wait two months before she was given approval to start using the app. This delay was fault and caused Ms X avoidable frustration.
30. It is apparent the Council's communication with Ms X has been flawed. It acknowledged it failed to handle her November 2021 complaint appropriately, but it remedied this appropriately by apologising and offering Ms X a small payment. After receiving access to the app, Ms X submitted a large number of recordings. The Council considered those recordings and did not find they demonstrated ASB. However, there is no evidence that, as per its policy, the Council communicated that decision to Ms X and informed her when it closed her case. Records also show Ms X made attempts to contact the Council to discuss the noise in spring 2022 without response. The Council says it was experiencing staff shortages during this time, which presumably contributed to the poor communication with Ms X. Nonetheless, it amounts to fault and caused Ms X further frustration.

Delays in complaints handling

31. Ms X requested a stage two response in March 2022. The Council's policy says it will respond within 20 working days. However, there was no prospect of the Council starting to look at Ms X’s stage two complaint until late September. This would have been almost six months after its response was due and was fault. The Council also failed to keep Ms X appropriately updated about the wait time. These faults did not cause Ms X a significant personal injustice as she was able to complain to the Ombudsman without waiting for the stage two response.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of the date of my decision, the Council will apologise to Ms X for the frustration caused by the faults set out in paragraphs 29 and 30.
33. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will remind its staff they must promptly communicate the outcome of ASB cases to the complainant.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

35. I have not investigated the issue set out in paragraph 2. This is because the Ombudsman has no powers to investigate how a Council acts in its role as a social housing provider. Ms X’s neighbours are council tenants and so her concerns the Council wrongly allowed the property to be statutory overcrowded is outside of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman