Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council responded to his complaints of anti-social behaviour from his neighbours causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s complaints of anti-social behaviour. But we found fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about the matter as it failed to respond to his contact while investigating his concerns. We have recommended a suitable remedy so we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains there were failings in the way the Council responded to his complaints about anti-social behaviour (ASB) caused by his neighbours who had been placed in their accommodation by the Council. Mr X says he has suffered harassment and noise nuisance causing distress and loss of amenity at his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have read the documents submitted by Mr X and spoken to him about the complaint. I considered information from the Council and the supporting documents it provided.
5. Mr X and the Council 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

The Council’s Noise Nuisance process

6. The Council’s noise nuisance procedure details the steps to be taken in dealing with complaints of noise nuisance. For domestic noise it says the responsibility for investigating lies with Housing staff. It notes this type of noise nuisance can sometimes be difficult to resolve. Officers should to speak to the parties involved, offer mediation and to consider noise monitoring equipment if problems persist.
7. Officers can reach a conclusion on noise levels and whether the type of behaviour should be considered as ASB and/or a breach of tenancy condition. Officers should consider proportionality of any action when dealing with cases.

What happened in this case

8. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
9. In 2023 the Council bought the property next door to Mr X’s house to use as temporary accommodation for people who may be homeless while the Council considered their applications. The Council moved an applicant and family into the property in October 2023. Mr X complained to the Council about ASB from the family including noise, banging, and slamming doors causing a nuisance to him and affecting his health.
10. An ASB officer investigated Mr X’s concerns. The officer visited both properties but neither Mr X nor the neighbour were in. The ASB officer sent a letter making an appointment to visit. Mr X declined the visit advising he would send information and noise recordings to the officer.
11. Mr X made further complaints to the Council about ASB from the family. Mr X said he had been in contact with the Temporary Accommodation (TA) team but received no response. The Council’s documents show the TA team were in contact with the family who had made counter allegations about Mr X’s behaviour and actions.
12. The ASB officer listened to the noise recordings and noted some noise. The officer spoke to the neighbour about the concerns raised by Mr X. The neighbour explained the cause of some noise. The officer did not consider the noise was deliberate or malicious and so not appropriate to issue any warnings to the family.
13. The ASB officer referred the matter to the TA team in early January 2024 and advised the ASB case would be closed. The Council accepts the ASB team did not advise Mr X it was closing the case and the matter now being dealt with by the TA team.
14. The TA team sent a referral to Neighbour Relations to offer mediation to Mr X and his neighbour to help resolve the ongoing issues. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints. It explained the Local Housing team and TA team were investigating Mr X’s concerns with mediation being suggested to help resolve the issues.
15. Mr X made further complaints about noise and his neighbours’ behaviour to the Council’s Complaints Team. Mr X was unhappy at the suggestion of mediation to resolve the ASB concerns he raised. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint and said it would be investigated at Stage 1 of the complaint procedure.
16. The TA team noted the police had visited both parties. A mediator had been in contact with Mr X and his neighbour. The neighbour responded positively to mediation, but Mr X did not respond to the original calls from the mediator, or the proposed appointment made during February 2024. The Council and other agencies considered Mr X’s behaviour and actions contributed to the issues he complained about. The TA team moved the neighbour away to different temporary accommodation in March 2024 as the situation escalated.
17. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in March 2024. It apologised for the difficulties he had experienced from the ASB he reported and how it had impacted on him. The Council also apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint due to the high volume of queries it was receiving and the ongoing investigation into his case. It acknowledged Mr X was unhappy with the suggestion of mediation to resolve his concerns. The Council confirmed the TA team were investigating the ongoing issues and been liaising with Neighbour Relations. It explained the TA team were looking to put an alternative resolution in place due to complex nature of the case. But due to Data Protection requirements it could not tell Mr X of the steps being discussed with his neighbour. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint.
18. In response to my enquiries the Council confirms that Mr X was regularly emailing officers with complaints raising the same issues. Mr X would have received acknowledgments from the TA enquiries mailbox and the TA officers passed Mr X’s complaints to the Complaints Team to investigate and respond to. It says the TA team have advised their officers to refrain from directly reply to customers where there is an ongoing investigation into a complaint/enquiry received via the Complaints team or Corporate Leadership team.
19. It has also accepted that during the stage 1 complaint investigation Mr X sent multiple emails about his complaints of ASB to the Complaints team, but the Complaints team did not respond. The Council says that because of this case it will apply a learning to its complaint handling to ensure that all further emails received during a complaint investigation are acknowledged.

My assessment

20. The Council’s document show it dealt with Mr X’s complaints of noise nuisance and ASB. The Council did not consider it should issue any warnings to Mr X’s neighbour or take any further action regarding ASB. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision there is no ASB to pursue further, but the decision is a matter of the officers’ professional judgement. We cannot question the merits of the decision itself without evidence of fault in the way it was made. I do not consider there is fault in this case.
21. This is because the evidence provided shows officers dealt with Mr X’s concerns according to the Council’s noise nuisance procedure. Officers contacted Mr X and his neighbour to discuss concerns and listened to Mr X’s noise recordings before reaching a decision whether to take further action.
22. The ASB officer passed Mr X’s case to the TA team to deal with. The Council accepts the officer failed to advise Mr X of the decision to refer the case to the ASB team. This was unfortunate but I do not consider it has caused Mr X such a significant injustice to warrant pursuing this any further. This is because the documents from the TA team show it was taking action and referring the matter to mediation. I am satisfied Mr X and his neighbour both received correspondence and contact about this, so were aware of what was proposed.
23. Once the Council became aware Mr X did not want to pursue mediation and the situation had escalated it took action to move the neighbour to different temporary accommodation. I consider this was suitable action for the Council to take to resolve matters.
24. The Council accepts it delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaint while it was investigating the concerns raised. During this time, the Council has recognised the Complaints Team did not acknowledge Mr X’s further correspondence regarding his concerns. And the TA team were under instruction not to respond while a complaint was being investigated. While a council may choose to limit its contact with a person in certain circumstances it should explain why it had decided to take this action. So, I consider it was fault by the Council not to advise Mr X it was limiting contact with him while it was investigating his complaint. The Council’s failure to do so will have caused frustration to Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X I recommend the Council sends him a written apology for the frustration caused by its failure to explain to him why it would not be responding to him while investigating his concerns.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within one month of the date of my decision the Council will send Mr X a written apology for the frustration caused by its failure to explain to him why it would not be responding to him while investigating his concerns.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it investigated Mr X’s complaints of ASB caused by his neighbour. There is evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about the matter as it failed to respond to his contact whilst investigating his concerns. I have recommended a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman