Summary: Mr R complained about the Council’s handling of his anti-social behaviour and noise complaints about his neighbours. We found fault in the Council’s actions which caused an injustice. The Council will provide Mr R with a personal remedy and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr R complained about the way the Council has handled his reports about his neighbour’s anti-social behaviour (“ASB”). Mr R said the Council failed to take action to stop the behaviour which caused him anxiety and fear for his safety.
2. Mr R would like the Council to move the family causing the issues and use processes which will avoid this happening again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered information provided by Mr R and by the Council, and relevant law, guidance and policy.
6. Mr R and the Council have had a chance to comment on a draft decision before this final decision was made.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policy

Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA)

7. Councils have a duty to investigate potential statutory nuisances. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises.
8. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

Environmental Protection Act 1990

9. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to act to stop or limit it.
10. The Council has a general duty to act to tackle anti-social behaviour. ASB can take many different forms and the Council should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most suitable for any given situation.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

11. Introduced six powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:

• the power to issue a community protection notice;
• the power to make a public spaces protection order;
• the power to close premises for a set length of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which a council, or other agencies, can apply for);
• a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and
• the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.

12. The Act also introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.

The Council’s anti-social behaviour policy

13. The policy gives examples of what constitutes anti-social behaviour, which include dog barking persistently, intimidating behaviour, aggressive and threatening language or behaviour and racial harassment. The policy states the Council’s action will depend on the seriousness of the report, but it will investigate every report.
14. The policy gives noise from neighbouring property as an example of a complaint and says it will use CCTV, a community warden service to visit the property to try and witness the noise. It also says it has noise recording equipment to help record evidence of the noise.

What happened

15. Mr R lives in social housing. In late 2022, he complained about noise from another social tenant in a neighbouring property. Mr R said there were several puppies in the neighbour’s property which were causing noise nuisance. He also complained the neighbour had physically assaulted him and been racist toward him.
16. The Council sent diary sheets to Mr R for him to complete. It called the neighbour two weeks later to discuss the complaint and requested enforcement patrols and information from the police about the assault.
17. The Council spoke with Mr R and said it was dealing with the noise complaint and the assault separately. It discussed an action plan regarding the assault – the patrols, information from the police and the Council would contact other residents for witness evidence and would check CCTV.
18. The Council also visited the neighbour’s property and reported there were no puppies, only one dog there.
19. The Council could not review CCTV footage as their CCTV was not working. The Council wrote to Mr R and explained it had not found evidence of the assault so its review of this was over unless the police could find anything.
20. No further action was taken - the Council says Mr R was not living at the property between January and April 2023. Mr R complained to the Council again in June 2023, and the Council again asked him to complete diary sheets to make a record of the noise.
21. A month later, Mr R complained again the noise was continuing and the neighbour had threatened him, and smoked cannabis in the communal areas regularly. He raised a complaint about the Council’s failure to act since late 2022.
22. The Council responded that it would continue with its ASB plan, and the housing officer would contact Mr R that week. The Council said it partially upheld Mr R’s complaint but did not explain what part of the complaint was upheld, nor offer any apology or acknowledgement of the impact on Mr R.
23. In August 2023, the Council called and spoke to Mr R, and to the neighbour. The neighbour said they had been away for the period Mr R had provided diary sheets for. The Council offered Mr R noise monitoring equipment for his home, to evidence the noise. It then told him they had no equipment available. The Council noted internally that three out of four of its machines were not working.
24. Mr R continued to complain about the continuing noise. In September 2023, the Council spoke to the other residents in the block and noted none of them had experienced any noise nuisance.
25. In November 2023, when Mr R complained again, the Council chased its enforcement team about noise monitoring equipment, and a month later it contacted Mr R to try to arrange to fit the equipment.
26. The noise monitoring equipment was fitted in March 2024, and removed in April 2024. Mr R says he has had no update from the Council as to the outcome of the recordings.
27. Also in March 2024, Mr R requested an ASB case review. Mr R was told the Council would update him on the outcome following a meeting in mid-May 2024. He has not yet had an update.

Analysis and Findings

28. Councils have a general duty to tackle ASB. ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
29. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant; and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

30. Councils should use the breadth of the powers available to them to tackle any issues of ASB. The Council failed to install noise monitoring equipment until fifteen months after the first noise report. The Council failed to arrange to visit Mr R’s home to see if they could witness the noise for themselves. Gathering evidence is a crucial part of investigating ASB reports. The Council is at fault here for failing to take suitable steps to gather this evidence in a timely manner, if at all.
31. Once the Council had diary sheets, it contacted the neighbour who said they had been away for the period. The Council did not ask for any evidence of the holiday or take any further steps until four months later. Again, this is fault.
32. The Council’s policy says it will keep complainants updated throughout its process, but it did not do this. Most of the Council’s communication with Mr R was prompted by his further complaints. This is fault.
33. Sometimes, antisocial behaviour may cause a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act. In such cases councils can serve both a CPN and an abatement notice on the perpetrator if they consider it necessary.
34. When a person asks for an anti-social behaviour case review, the Council should decide whether it meets the local threshold. The ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months. Mr R had complained three times by the end of 2022. The Council should have told Mr R of his right to seek a review once the threshold was met. The Council did not do this, which is fault.
35. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies should carry out the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then tell the complainant the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
36. It is clear that Mr R has been continuously complaining since 2022, and the Council has not done what it should have to satisfy itself as to whether the noise constituted ASB or a nuisance. It has not taken meaningful action to stop the problems complained of. The Council has therefore left Mr R in a position where he is continually contacting the Council and asking for help.
37. If the Council had carried out proper investigations, and decided it could not take any action, Mr R would at least have been aware that he needs to find an alternate solution. At best, the problems complained of could have been tackled. As it is, Mr R continues to live in what he describes as unbearable circumstances, with the additional frustration of no answers from the Council. This is an avoidable injustice caused by the Council.
38. In deciding an appropriate remedy, I have taken into account Mr R’s part in the time taken here. The Council provided him with diary sheets in December 2022, and made a number of attempts to speak with him but he did not provide responses. The Council is therefore not entirely responsible for the time.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. The Council will, within one month of the decision,
1. Apologise to Mr R in accordance with our guidance on apologies;
2. Provide Mr R with a written report explaining the outcome of the ASB case review;
3. Make a payment of £500 to Mr R in recognition of the injustice caused over a prolonged period.
40. Within three months of the decision, the Council will:
1. Evidence what action it has taken/ is taking to ensure noise monitoring equipment is available when needed;
2. Carry out a full review of how it is reviewing ASB/noise reports and / refresh the knowledge of staff involved in the process;
3. Carry out a full review of how it is applying its ASB case review (community trigger) and refresh the knowledge of staff involved in the process.
41. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. We found the Council at fault. This fault caused Mr R injustice. The Council accepted my recommendations, so I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman