Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s failure to act on noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour from her neighbour and complains the Council treated her differently to her neighbour and failed to consider her complaint properly. The Council did not follow its noise procedure on the first complaint from Mrs B and failed to respond to her request for noise recording equipment. There is no evidence the Council treated Mrs B differently. The Council failed to tell Mrs B about the ASB review process and delayed responding to her complaint. An apology, payment to Mrs B, discussion with Mrs B about whether she can use the ASB review process and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council:
• failed to properly investigate and take action on noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour from her neighbour;
• wrongly took action against her based on her neighbour’s version of events without giving her the opportunity to comment;
• treated her differently to her neighbour;
• ignored the evidence she provided;
• colluded with her neighbour;
• failed to properly investigate her complaint about two officers;
• delayed responding to her complaint;
• unreasonably refused to change the officers dealing with the case; and
• failed to give her information about the complaints process when she asked for it.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s actions means she has had to suffer noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour from her neighbour and it has had an impact on her physical and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have not investigated Mrs B’s concerns about the Council issuing a community protection notice (CPN) and noise abatement notice against her. That is because both those notices carry a right of appeal. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint about matters where there is an alternative route for remedy. If Mrs B wanted to challenge the notices the Council issued she would have needed to appeal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments and the documentary evidence, videos and photographs Mrs B provided;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
10. Mrs B 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

What should have happened

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act)

11. Section 2 of the Act defines anti-social behaviour (ASB) 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. The Act gives the Council powers to tackle anti-social behaviour which include the power to issue community protection notices, and the power to apply to the courts for a civil injunction.
13. The Act allows for a person complaining of anti-social behaviour to request a review of how the Council dealt with the complaint.
14. The ASB review process (which used to be referred to as the community trigger) allows for a review of the case where a locally determined threshold is met. It is a means of giving victims and communities a say in how antisocial behaviour is addressed. It is intended as a safety net for those who believe they have not had a satisfactory response to their complaint about ASB.

Noise nuisance

15. A statutory nuisance is defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and can include noise disturbances. For noise to be a statutory nuisance, it must either unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premise, injure health or be likely to injure health.
16. Councils have a legal duty to investigate noise complaints. Where they are satisfied a statutory nuisance exists, they are required to serve an abatement notice. Whether a statutory nuisance exists is for a professionally qualified environmental health officer to decide following an investigation.

The Council’s ASB review process

17. The Council’s ASB review process is still referred to as the community trigger on the Council’s website. It says anyone can create a 'trigger', although the following criteria have to be met:
• the individual must have complained to Redbridge Council, Metropolitan Police Service and/or a Registered Social Landlord three times about separate incidents in the last six months.

The Council’s domestic noise procedure

18. This says when the Council receives a report of domestic noise where the caller has complained before it will carry out a reactive visit. If the caller does not provide access the Council will not visit.

What happened

19. The Council received an anonymous call about noise in September 2022. Council officers attended the address complained about. The Council did not identify any noise nuisance but during the visit Mrs B’s neighbour reported noise and antisocial behaviour from Mrs B. Mrs B’s neighbour showed the officers video evidence. The officers then visited Mrs B, who was the source of the anonymous report. Mrs B made counter allegations against her neighbour and the officers viewed Mrs B’s evidence.
20. Following that visit the Council served both Mrs B and her neighbour with community protection warnings (CPW’s). The Council told both Mrs B and her neighbour it would not consider any further reports of noise or antisocial behaviour from before September 2022. The Council also told Mrs B and her neighbour about the need to report any nuisance at the time it was experienced so officers could visit to witness it.
21. A few days later Mrs B contacted the Council to tell it about ongoing noise and antisocial behaviour from her neighbour. Mrs B tried to provide the Council with video evidence but due to the size of the files the Council could not access the videos. The Council offered to visit to view the videos in person. The Council repeated that offer when Mrs B reported further incidents.
22. On 28 September 2022 Mrs B asked the Council for details of its complaints procedure. In response the Council told Mrs B it would refer the matter to the officer’s line manager to review the action taken.
23. In October 2022 the Council received a video from the neighbouring property which it considered showed Mrs B breaching the conditions of the CPW. The Council therefore served Mrs B with a CPN.
24. Mrs B provided the Council with further videos which the Council could access. The Council viewed those videos but asked Mrs B for a date where it could visit to view the videos to establish the events had taken place after September 2022. The Council noted the videos it had seen did not demonstrate a breach of the CPW by the neighbour in the Council’s view. Mrs B again raised concerns about lack of action by the Council and put in a complaint on 12 October.
25. The Council responded to the complaint on 14 December. Other than the failure to provide Mrs B with details of the corporate complaints procedure the Council did not find any fault. The Council agreed a panel of officers would take any decision about further enforcement action for the next six months to reassure Mrs B.
26. On 18 December Mrs B asked for her complaint to go to the next stage.
27. On 6 January 2023 the Council served a noise abatement notice on Mrs B for loud music after it received evidence from her neighbour.
28. Mrs B continued to report noise and antisocial behaviour from her neighbour. None of those reports were made at the time noise was being experienced. The Council continued to offer to visit Mrs B’s property to view her evidence. The Council also made clear it could not take action based on one person’s version of events.
29. In June 2023 when Mrs B asked the Council why it had not taken action it told her she needed to contact the out of hours service to allow officers to visit to witness the noise.
30. On 27 June 2023 the Council responded to the complaint at stage two. The Council apologised for the delay responding. The Council did not uphold the complaint but said any further enforcement action would be considered by a panel of officers. That was to remove any potential bias in decision-making and would remain in place indefinitely. The Council then wrote to Mrs B to make clear what evidence could and could not be submitted as part of the ongoing complaint.

Analysis

31. Mrs B says when she reported noise nuisance in September 2022 the Council wrongly visited her neighbour first. Mrs B says the Council should have visited her address first to take details of the complaint and to listen to decide if there was any noise nuisance.
32. The Council has provided conflicting evidence about what happened when officers visited Mrs B’s road when she reported noise nuisance in September 2022. In its response to my enquiry the Council said officers had visited the road and were approached by those about whom Mrs B had complained. However, the remainder of the documentary evidence shows the officers knocked at the door of the neighbouring property rather than being approached in the street. I am concerned about the conflicting information here. There is a record of the officers knocking on the door of the neighbouring property and this is what Mrs B says the officers told her. I therefore consider it more likely, on the balance of probability, the officers in question approached Mrs B’s neighbour rather than being approached by the neighbour on the street.
33. I am concerned about what happened here because the Council’s noise procedure says when noise is reported a reactive visit is undertaken to the person reporting the noise nuisance. The Council’s noise procedure says if the person reporting the noise nuisance will not provide access a visit is not undertaken. In this case it is clear Mrs B reported noise anonymously. In those circumstances, according to the Council’s noise procedure, it should not have undertaken a visit and should not have visited Mrs B’s neighbour. Failure to follow the process is fault. I can understand why approaching Mrs B’s neighbour first, outside the parameters of the Council’s noise procedure, has caused Mrs B to believe the Council treated her neighbour more favourably.
34. I have found no evidence that is the case though. I have considered the communications between the Council and Mrs B as well as communications between the Council and Mrs B’s neighbour. There is nothing in any of those communications to suggest the Council treated Mrs B’s neighbour differently to her. Nevertheless, I consider Mrs B is left with some uncertainty about whether the situation would have proceeded differently had the Council followed its process.
35. Mrs B say Council officers visiting her neighbour led to her neighbour undertaking more acts of harassment and antisocial behaviour against her. Mrs B says before the Council officers visited her neighbour the situation had settled down as the police had been involved. While I understand Mrs B’s point, I am satisfied the only reason Council officers became involved in September 2022 is because Mrs B reported noise nuisance. Had the situation been resolved Mrs B would not likely have had any contact with the Council. So, I cannot say Council officers visiting Mrs B’s neighbour caused Mrs B to experience further noise and antisocial behaviour. Nor could I say if the Council had not visited on 21 September 2022 Mrs B could have avoided the CPW, CPN and noise abatement notice. That is because if Mrs B had continued to report noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour the Council would have had the same contact with Mrs B and her neighbour which might have resulted in the same outcome given Mrs B’s neighbour made counter allegations against her.
36. I consider though Mrs B is left with some uncertainty about whether the situation would have escalated had the Council followed its noise procedure. Mrs B is also left with some frustration about whether the Council dealt with her fairly, although I have not found any evidence of the Council treating her differently. It has however, clearly undermined her confidence in the Council’s impartiality.
37. There is also evidence of Mrs B asking the Council to install noise recording equipment in her property. The Council initially denied it had received a request for noise recording equipment. However, Mrs B has provided evidence of her request. Failure to respond to that point is fault and again undermined Mrs B’s confidence in the Council’s processes. It is also clear though the Council does not use noise recording equipment and therefore Mrs B has not missed out on having that installed in her property.
38. Mrs B says the Council failed to properly investigate and act on noise nuisance and harassment from her neighbour. Mrs B says this is despite the fact she has continually reported issues with her neighbour and provided the Council with video evidence.
39. I am satisfied Mrs B has made many reports of noise and antisocial behaviour from her neighbour to the Council since September 2022. However, I am satisfied the Council has made clear to Mrs B she needed to contact the Council when noise was taking place so officers could visit to witness it and assess. The documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me Mrs B, despite making many reports to the Council, failed to contact the Council at the time noise was being experienced so the Council could visit to witness it.
40. Mrs B says she provided significant video evidence to the Council and the Council failed to consider it. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me, with the exception of eight videos, the Council could not access any of the other videos Mrs B provided. I am satisfied the Council offered to view Mrs B’s video evidence in person though. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the only reason that did not happen is because Mrs B did not arrange access.
41. In those circumstances the only evidence the Council had were eight videos Mrs B provided which it was able to view. It is clear from the Council’s records it did not consider those videos evidenced noise or antisocial behaviour and I am satisfied the Council told Mrs B that. In those circumstances from the Council’s point of view it did not have any evidence to pursue further action against Mrs B’s neighbour. I therefore cannot criticise it for failing to do so.
42. I am concerned though in response to my enquiry the Council said it does not offer an ASB case review service. That used to be known as the community trigger. I am satisfied the Council has a community trigger process, as it would be required to do by the Act anyway. I say that because the Council’s website refers to the community trigger process, which I refer to in paragraph 17. As the Council’s process makes clear, if a person has made more than three complaints of antisocial behaviour within a six-month period they can request a community trigger (ASB review). I have seen no evidence the Council told Mrs B about that option despite the fact she made more than three complaints of antisocial behaviour in a six-month period. Failure to tell Mrs B about that process is fault.
43. I could not say though if the Council had referred the case for an ASB review it would have acted differently. That would be dependent on the outcome of the ASB review. The documentary evidence is clear Mrs B’s neighbour has made counter allegations and the police have been involved. As remedy I therefore recommended the Council discuss with Mrs B the option of pursuing an ASB review should she have continued to make complaints of antisocial behaviour from her neighbour to the level required by the process when she is ready to do so. The Council should also apologise to Mrs B for not making her aware of that process previously. I further recommended the Council send a reminder to officers dealing with antisocial behaviour cases about the need to tell those who are likely to qualify for the ASB review process about that option. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
44. Mrs B says the Council wrongly took action against her in September 2022 based on her neighbour’s version of events. Mrs B says the Council did not give her an opportunity to comment. The evidence I have seen satisfies me after the Council viewed the neighbour’s evidence in September 2022 it visited Mrs B to discuss the issues with her and considered the evidence Mrs B held. I therefore could not say the Council acted based only on the neighbour’s evidence. Indeed, I note following the September 2022 visit the Council served both Mrs B and her neighbour with CPW’s. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council although, as I said earlier, under the Council’s noise procedure it should not have carried out that visit.
45. Mrs B says the Council refused to tell her how to send videos which were large files. Mrs B says the Council treated her differently as it told her neighbour how to share the videos. The documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me Mrs B repeatedly asked the Council how she could make the videos available to officers given the difficulties officers had accessing the large files she sent. I am satisfied though officers also repeatedly offered to visit Mrs B to review her videos. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mrs B’s neighbour had a similar problem sending videos to the Council due to the size of the attachments. The evidence shows the Council made the same offer to visit Mrs B’s neighbour to view the videos and the neighbour arranged a time with the officer. I am therefore satisfied the Council treated Mrs B and her neighbour the same and made the same offer. The only difference is Mrs B did not make the arrangements for the officer to visit to view her videos. I have therefore found no evidence of fault here.
46. Mrs B says the Council colluded with her neighbour to set up social media accounts where private videos were shared. The documentary evidence shows Mrs B’s neighbour referred to sharing information about the case on social media in emails to the Council. However, there is no evidence Council officers took part in any of those arrangements. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
47. Mrs B says the Council treated her differently to her neighbour as it told her it would not accept any video evidence before September 2022. Mrs B says though the Council took into account video evidence the neighbour provided even though that was before September 2022.
48. Having considered the documentary records I am satisfied the only time the Council took into account evidence from before September 2022 is when it visited in September 2022. At that point the Council viewed evidence from both Mrs B and her neighbour and issued CPW’s. I am satisfied the Council made clear after that date it would not consider any evidence before September 2022. This was because the CPW’s served in September 2022 took into account the evidence from both Mrs B and her neighbour about what had happened before that date. There is no evidence the Council accepted video evidence from before September 2022 from Mrs B’s neighbour after the CPW was issued. I am therefore satisfied the Council treated Mrs B and her neighbour the same.
49. Mrs B says the Council treated her video evidence differently as it told her she needed to provide video evidence with a timestamp when that was not required for her neighbour’s videos. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council treated Mrs B and her neighbour differently here. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council made clear to both Mrs B and her neighbour it would not consider video evidence from before September 2022. I am satisfied this is why the Council wanted videos from both Mrs B and her neighbour to have a timestamp or a means of verifying when the video was taken. That is not fault. As I have made clear, the CPW issued to both parties was based on the evidence the Council had seen prior to September 2022 and could therefore not be taken into account again for future action.
50. Mrs B says the Council treated her differently from her neighbour as when she raised concerns about benefit issues the Council told her it could not deal with that issue as it was a different department. Mrs B says though when the neighbour raised similar concerns about her the Council asked her for details.
51. I have not seen any documentary evidence to suggest Mrs B’s neighbour raised concerns about whether Mrs B was wrongly receiving benefits. I recognise the Council spoke to Mrs B’s niece about whether she was living in the property with Mrs B given she was not on the council tax records. However, I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council raised that matter with Mrs B because of something Mrs B’s neighbour said. Rather, the documentary evidence satisfies me the Council wanted to clarify Mrs B’s niece’s involvement given it understood she did not live at the address. I have therefore found no evidence of the Council treating Mrs B differently.
52. Mrs B says the Council unreasonably refused to change the officers allocated to her case when she complained. I am satisfied the Council considered Mrs B’s request and decided not to change the officers as it had identified no concerns about how those officers dealt with Mrs B. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for its decision.
53. Mrs B says the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint about two officers. I have seen no evidence to support Mrs B’s allegation here. I appreciate Mrs B is dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint. However, having considered the communications between Mrs B and the Council I have seen nothing which undermines the Council’s conclusions. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
54. Mrs B is also concerned though when the Council offered a meeting with her to discuss her complaint it insisted on the officer investigating being accompanied by one of the officers she had complained about. I understand Mrs B is referring here to the team manager of the two officers she complained about. Having considered the documentary records though it is clear the complaint concerned the two officers dealing with the case, rather than the manager for those two officers. I therefore do not consider it fault for the Council to include the manager in the proposed meeting before Mrs B raised concerns about that.
55. However, I note the Council later said in a complaint response Mrs B had refused to meet with the investigating officer and said she would only meet with a senior manager. I have found no evidence to support that. Rather, the evidence I have seen satisfies me Mrs B said she would meet with the investigating officer if he attended on his own. Including wrong information in the complaint response is fault. The Council should also have told Mrs B if it did not consider it appropriate for the investigating officer to meet with Mrs B on his own. Failure to do that is fault. I consider an apology satisfactory remedy for that.
56. There is no evidence the officers Mrs B complained about were involved in the Council’s complaint responses. I am satisfied both the stage one complaint and stage two responses were sent by different officers and neither of those officers were the two complained of.
57. Mrs B may have misunderstood an email from one of the officers on 27 September 2022 though. In that email one of the officers referred to having investigated the case alongside the other officer Mrs B had complained about. I am satisfied though the officer was referring in that email to the reports of antisocial behaviour which the two officers had investigated, rather than a complaint about themselves. As I have no evidence of fault by the Council here I have no grounds to criticise it.
58. Mrs B says the Council failed to properly consider her complaint at stage two and only repeated what it had said at stage one. I am satisfied the stage two complaint response was detailed and went further than the stage one response. I therefore could not say the Council simply repeated what it had said at stage one. However, the Council’s stage two complaint response failed to address many areas Mrs B raised in her complaint. That is fault.
59. The Council accepts it delayed responding to Mrs B’s complaint at stage two. Failure to comply with the timescales in the Council’s complaints procedure is fault. I am satisfied the Council has apologised for that. I consider that a satisfactory outcome for this part of the complaint.
60. Mrs B says the Council failed to give her information about the complaints process when she asked for it. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mrs B asked the Council for details of the Council’s complaints procedure in her email of 28 September 2022. However, rather than providing Mrs B with a copy of the Council’s complaints procedure the officer instead referred Mrs B to his line manager. That is not satisfactory and failure to provide the complaints procedure to Mrs B when she asked for it is fault. The Council has accepted that. I consider an apology satisfactory remedy.
61. As remedy for the impact of the failure to follow the Council’s noise procedure properly in September 2022, for not responding to the request for a noise recording machine and for not responding to all areas of her complaint I recommended the Council apologise to Mrs B and pay her £300. That is to reflect her uncertainty, frustration and the time and trouble she had to go to. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
62. I further recommended the Council remind officers dealing with reports of noise nuisance of the need to follow the noise procedure particularly in relation to having any contact with the person complained about and in relation to whether a visit is appropriate if the complaint is made anonymously. The Council should also remind officers dealing with complaints of the need to ensure complaint responses cover all the concerns raised by the person complaining. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

63. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs B for the distress and upset she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mrs B £300;
• discuss with Mrs B whether she wishes to pursue the ASB review process when she is ready to do so; and
• send a reminder to officers dealing with antisocial behaviour and noise to remind them:
1. of the need to follow the Council’s noise procedure when deciding whether to visit the person that has complained; and
2. about the need to notify those who have complained about the ASB review process where more than three complaints of antisocial behaviour have been received within six months;
• send a reminder to officers dealing with complaints of the need to ensure complaint responses cover all the issues raised by the person that has complained.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mrs B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman