Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to take sufficient action to help tackle disturbance caused by a neighbour, who is the neighbour’s housing provider. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council missed opportunities to address this matter when it alerted to Ms C’s reports in 2019 and 2021. This caused Ms C distress. The Council accepts this finding. It has agreed action to remedy Ms C’s injustice, set out at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant, ‘Ms C’. She complains the Council has failed to take sufficient action to help tackle disturbance she is caused by a neighbour in an adjacent flat. Ms C lives in the London Borough of Haringey (LB Haringey), but her neighbour’s housing provider is the London Borough of Islington (‘the Council’ in this investigation).
2. Ms C says as a result she continues to experience regular disturbance from her neighbour in the form of shouting and the banging of objects, often during the daytime when she is trying to work. The disturbance causes distress and has an ongoing impact on Ms C’s health and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
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. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Ms C’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and further information she provided;
• information provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries;
• information gathered during a linked investigation against LB Haringey; and
• relevant Ombudsman guidance including that on remedies.

8. I invited Ms C and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any response they made before I completed the investigation and issued this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background to this investigation

9. Since around November 2019, Ms C has suffered disturbance from a neighbour who lives in an adjacent flat (whom I will call ‘Ms X’). Ms C reports the nuisance as consisting of shouting, ranting and aggressive language along with banging objects that can last for up to several hours at a time. Ms C believes Ms X is nearly always alone when these incidents take place. She also believes the behaviour and content of the shouting, may be illustrative of Ms X being vulnerable and having unmet mental health needs.
10. At first Ms C made reports about the disturbance to the letting agent of the neighbouring flat. The agency told her ‘the Council’ let the flat to Ms X. Ms C understood this to be a reference to her local authority – LB Haringey.
11. In August 2021 Ms C made a complaint to us about the actions of LB Haringey. She said it had not done enough to investigate or resolve the disturbance she reported. It was only during that investigation that Ms C learnt ‘the council’ responsible for housing Ms C was in fact, the London Borough of Islington.
12. In April 2022 we upheld Ms C’s complaint. Among the faults we found, we noted LB Haringey had contacted the Council in 2021 but had not followed up on that contact meaning its liaison had been ineffective. LB Haringey agreed to take several actions to remedy the injustice its actions had caused Ms C. This included undertaking a review of Ms C’s case.

LB Haringey’s review

13. One of the steps forming the review was that LB Haringey would get back in touch with the Council. It would gaher background information about Ms X’s case and ask for a meeting to explore ‘options for action’.
14. Consequently, in May 2022 the reviewing officer for LB Haringey contacted a housing officer at the Council whom it had contacted about Ms X in 2021. They referred the reviewing officer to a colleague. When that colleague did not respond to messages the reviewing officer made further enquiries with the Council. After several emails and telephone calls, a housing officer from the Council contacted the reviewing officer. This was at the end of the May 2022.
15. Both authorities shared information about Ms X during June 2022. There was discussion about whether Ms X’s case should be referred to the Council’s Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (CMARAC). This is a multi-agency meeting where information is shared on complex / high risk cases involving vulnerable victims / perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.
16. But in early July 2022 the Council decided the case did not meet its referral criteria. It said this was because “the support services who are available only operate within the Islington borough and this property is out of borough”. But the Council did say a named housing officer would be in contact with LB Haringey’s reviewing officer.
17. At the end of July 2022, the Council had not contacted the reviewing officer and so they chased it for an update. Their emails referred to wanting to ‘hand over’ the case to the Council. They said they had given some contact details to Ms C and “requested she contact you directly to progress this. There is little else Haringey can do at this point although we are happy to assist you to gather evidence if needed”.
18. In early August 2022, LB Islington provided an update. It explained recent efforts it had made to engage with Ms X. It also explained efforts it had made to re-house her. It shared details with me during this investigation.
19. I have seen no further communications between the two authorities after this time.
20. The Council has shared with me information that shows since August 2022 it has taken further action intended to move Ms X from her property. This is continuing.

My findings

21. I do not consider I can find fault with the Council’s actions from June 2022 onward after LB Haringey contacted it about Ms X’s case. I can see the Council was a little slow to respond to LB Haringey’s contact – its reviewing officer had to contact several individuals at the Council before they received a substantive reply. But after that time the Council took seriously what it heard about the disturbance suffered by Ms C and took efforts to address Ms X’s housing situation.
22. I am limited in the detail that I can share with Ms C about this. I cannot tell her how the Council came to be housing Ms X nor the detail of the contacts the Council had with her over summer and autumn 2022. But I can confirm there were several attempts made to engage with Ms X. And by November 2022 the Council committed itself to a course of action that should see Ms X move. Although one that I am aware may take several months.
23. I consider there is little more the Council can do at this time. It is not Ms C’s local authority and so it has no statutory duty to investigate her reports of disturbance by Ms X. It is for LB Haringey to investigate any noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour given the powers it has. I also consider it is for that authority to act as Ms C’s main point of contact and advise her of any developments in this case.
24. Of course, to do that will man LB Haringey must keep in communication with the Council. So, it is disappointing to see that communications between the two authorities stopped in August. Although that said, the Council never broke off communications with LB Haringey. It did not respond to an earlier suggestion it keep in touch with Ms C, but as I have suggested above, I do not consider this was an appropriate suggestion. Because I consider for so long as LB Haringey must respond to the disturbance Ms C reports, the most suitable channel of communication will be for that authority to liaise with Ms C. But I have recommended LB Haringey re-open communications with the Council. I expect the Council respond positively to that. I consider it essential that neither authority lets this matter drift again.
25. On this final point, I note the Council’s engagement in 2022, while welcome, was belated. My previous investigation established, and the Council has confirmed, that as early as December 2019 the letting agent contacted it about Ms C’s reports. LB Haringey also contacted it around May 2021.
26. On both occasions the Council offered assurances it would look to move Ms X to alternative accommodation. But on neither occasion did its efforts amount to very much and clearly no move happened.
27. By 2021 LB Haringey should have been taking a far more robust approach given Ms C’s reports (as I noted above we have previously found it at fault here). Had it done so then communications from LB Haringey may have caused the Council to take more action to address Ms X’s behaviour or housing as it did in 2022. But it would be unfair for LB Haringey to shoulder all the blame here. Because noting the repeated reports of Ms X causing disturbance to Ms C, the Council should have been far more pro-active in addressing this matter even without such prompting.
28. I consider it is not too late for us to take a view on the Council’s actions in either 2019 or 2021. These events were more than 12 months before Ms C made any complaint about the Council. But as I noted above, she did know the Council was responsible for housing Ms X until we investigated her complaint last year.
29. Following our investigation last year we recommended LB Haringey take action to remedy the injustice to Ms C caused by its faults. This included a symbolic payment for its lack of service and carrying out the review discussed above. In considering how the Council should remedy the injustice its actions have caused I am conscious that we should not ask it to remedy an injustice already remedied by the neighbouring authority.
30. But that said, I consider there is a separable injustice caused to Ms C by the Council’s lack of diligence in 2019 and 2021 when it learnt of her complaints. Its failure to act will have added something to Ms C’s distress caused by Ms X’s actions and compounded by LB Haringey’s poor response to her complaint. This is distress in the form of uncertainty. Because Ms C will not know whether a more effective response by the Council may have resulted in this matter being resolved a lot sooner.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council accepts these findings. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms C it has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will provide her with:
1. an apology accepting the findings of this investigation; and
2. a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise her injustice.
32. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms C. The Council has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I can complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman