Summary: We cannot investigate some of Mr X’s complaints about anti-social behaviour from a neighbour as they relate to the Council’s role as a social landlord and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate other elements of Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X reported the Council failed to act on his noise complaints from a neighbour who is a Council tenant. He said the Council:
• refused to install noise insulation in the tenant’s home;
• provided a false date when the tenants were due to leave the property; and
• stopped engaging with him despite ongoing reports.
2. He stated the noise has caused sleep deprivation, avoidable distress, and harm to his and his wife’s mental health and work. Mr X wants the Council to rehouse the tenants or provide a specialised care home for the tenant causing the noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We cannot investigate some of Ms X’s complaint about anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
9. Mr X’s neighbour is a social tenant of the Council. The law says we cannot investigate the Council’s actions under its powers as a social landlord. Therefore, we cannot investigate matters such as the Council needing to install sound insulation, rehoming of the tenants and other housing related matters.
10. The Council has powers to deal with anti-social behaviour separate to its responsibilities as a social housing landlord. However, it is for the Council to decide if the concerns amount to anti-social behaviour and what action to take, if any.
11. The Council investigated the noise report with its Neighbourhood and Enforcement teams, including the Anti-Social Behaviour Team. Local enquiries found the noises to be normal living sounds of the family in residence, not deliberate or malicious, and therefore not classified as anti-social behaviour. The Council referred Mr X to its website, which explains what constitutes anti-social behaviour and states everyday living noises are not investigated. The Council decided it would take no further action to address the matter.
12. The Council apologised to Mr X for failing to inform him of its decision not to take further action. This lack of communication resulted in Mr X's subsequent reports going unanswered.
13. The Council explained to Mr X that the tenants were only temporarily residing at the property while repairs were being carried out on their permanent residence. It did not intentionally provide false information regarding the tenants' departure date. Due to delays in the repair work, the tenants remained at the property longer than initially expected. The Council was unable to share specific details about the tenants' circumstances in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation.
14. The Council fully investigated Mr X’s concerns, conducting local enquiries following his noise report. In line with guidance provided on its website, it determined that the noise did not qualify as anti-social behaviour. Since the noises were not deemed deliberate or malicious, the Council decided no further action was necessary. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault how the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We cannot investigate some of Mr X’s complaint as it relates to the Council’s role as a social landlord. We will not investigate other elements of Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman