Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr J’s complaint about it failing to act on his reports about a neighbour’s behaviour. The Council failed to provide evidence in support of what it said it had done in response to his reports. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains the Council failed, despite receiving evidence, to act against a new neighbour who behaves antisocially, threateningly, and causes a noise nuisance: as a result, his health is suffering, the ongoing situation causes him stress, and his quality of life is affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities

4. Under section 175 (3) Housing Act 1988, a person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy it. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each as about what is reasonable, taking account of the circumstances of the applicant. (paragraph 6.23)
5. Housing authorities have a duty to carry out an assessment in all cases where an eligible applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. (paragraph 13)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered all the information Mr J sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr J and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr J has lived in his flat for more than ten years. He is a pensioner. About two years ago, the Council moved a new tenant into the flat below. Problems started almost straight away. The neighbour slammed his car brakes on when infront of Mr J when he was driving, for example. He also banged on his ceiling and shouted in the middle of the night because he thought Mr J was banging on the floor. This jolted Mr J awake, causing him a great deal of anxiety and sleep loss.
8. Mr J points out the block is usually reserved for the elderly, but the Council will house younger tenants there who have mental health or drug problems.
9. The neighbour was younger than Mr J who feels physically intimidated by him. The neighbour threatened and bullied him. He damaged his vehicle, and played music loudly at all hours, even when not in the flat. Mr J sent the Council a video of the neighbour peering through his letterbox and many logs recording his behaviour. The neighbour started to turn his electricity supply off from outside causing his fridge and freezer to defrost. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment which recorded the neighbour banging on four out of the six nights installed. While he thinks officers visited the neighbour and warned him, he is unhappy the Council has done little else to resolve the situation.
10. To get relief, and a decent night’s sleep, in the summer Mr J will sleep in his small camper van. In the winter, he goes to hotels. He now wears a body cam for his own protection. The Council refused to class him as homeless because of the neighbour’s ongoing behaviour. It told him it could not move the neighbour or him because it would encourage everyone who wanted to move.
11. The Council’s Tenant Appeal Panel reviewed Mr J’s complaint. It decided: while accepting confidentiality concerns, officers should give some information to him about progress to help reduce his stress; the Council was following the housing policy too strictly by refusing to allow tenants to move; while Mr J was not homeless, it recommended the Council offer him a direct let to move him. It also recommended action the Council needed to take and offered him £500 in compensation.
12. During our investigation, Mr J confirmed the Council had now moved the neighbour from the flat below. He is unhappy because the Council let it to a young woman.
13. The Council says Mr J made reports in: 2019 (1); 2020 (2); 2021 (4); and in 2022 (2). It also says he refused the offer of the Noise App on several occasions which would have recorded any noise. A record of contact I have seen disclosed to Mr J during the complaints procedure, noted:

• In December 2020 an officer spoke to him about his neighbour’s behaviour. The record of this call notes that, ‘he has a noise app and he uses this every night to record sound’. It went on to note Mr J saying in the past, he had gone to the neighbour and offered to play the recordings to him. The officer advised Mr J to, 'carry on using his noise app and keep a log’.
• In January 2021, an officer recorded Mr J calling again. During this call he referred to him trying to reason with the neighbour and, ‘perhaps offering to let him listen to my recordings’.

14. The Council also explained many of the video clips he sent do not show anything or do not play. Noise monitoring equipment installed showed, ‘nothing major was recorded’. The environmental protection team installed equipment too but found no evidence of a statutory nuisance. In response to my enquiries, the neighbourhood enforcement officer said he asked the environmental protection team to install the equipment, which it refused to do.
15. It has no record of officers visiting to witness a statutory nuisance but, explained a significant period covered by his reports was during the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns. Visits were discouraged and witnessing noise was best done by the Noise app instead.
16. Some complaints, such as tampering with the electricity supply, were irregular. Officers spoke to the neighbour about the report, who denied it. The Council had no evidence it was the neighbour so decided to move, or lock, the electricity box. There were problems establishing who owned it and whether a lock could be fitted.
17. It also says on several occasions, an officer and the police asked the neighbour about Mr J’s claims of harassment, which he denied. He was warned on many occasions not to talk or approach Mr J and for a long period, he followed this advice. Whenever there was an incident, officers would speak to the neighbour to ask what had happened.
18. The Council confirmed three other residents reported the neighbour. When contacted, one did not want to get involved, the second never returned calls, and the third said it was not as bad as Mr J claimed.
19. It explained it tried to transfer the neighbour but, the situation was complicated. It also claimed it had contact with the neighbour who denied any wrongdoing and made counter allegations against Mr J. It would not move a tenant based on their behaviour. There was not enough evidence to look at enforcement or legal action against him.
20. The Council confirmed it did not consider Mr J homeless. This was because he was not threatened with homelessness or homeless.
21. It also explained in the last 18 months, it exercised discretion on one case to move a tenant for a reason not listed in its housing policy. The housing policy sets out the circumstances when it will consider a direct offer. A report was sent to a panel recommending a direct let but, this was refused.

My findings

22. The Council failed to send evidence to support what it said it did in response to my enquiries. Despite giving the Council extra time to provide evidence, it failed to do so.
23. The only evidence I have seen is a report from the neighbourhood enforcement officer sent in response to my enquiries.

Contact with Mr J

24. The Council claims it was in contact with Mr J to discuss the problem and the need to gather evidence. The Council failed to provide any evidence to show it had been in contact with Mr J and had discussions with him about the need to gather evidence. This failure to provide evidence is fault.
25. The Council also failed to provide evidence in support of its claim of offering Mr J the Noise app on several occasions which he refused. Indeed, the record I was able to see attached to his complaint papers contradicted what the Council said as it clearly records Mr J using the Noise app to make recordings. The failure to show any evidence to support what it says is fault.

Noise monitoring

26. It also failed to provide evidence about the results of noise monitoring equipment it says was installed which led it conclude there was no statutory nuisance.
27. It confirmed there was no record of any visit by an officer to try and witness the claimed nuisance. It also said noise was best witnessed by the Noise app.
28. It noted a significant portion of his complaints came during peak Covid-19 when visits were discouraged. The country was in national lockdown between January to March 2021. The government introduced a phased exit from lockdown. People were still encouraged to work from home where possible with non-essential retail opening in the middle of April but remaining businesses, activities, and events not reopening until the end of June.
29. From the end of June 2021, the country was fully out of lockdown and normal activities resumed. This means there was nothing to stop officers visiting to try and witness what Mr J reported.
30. As already noted, the Council did not provide any evidence to support its claims. This failure amounts to fault.

Liaison with the police

31. Although the Council claimed it liaised with the police ,talked and written to the neighbour about Mr J’s claims whenever there was an incident, it provided no evidence. Nor did it provide evidence of the neighbour making counter claims against Mr J.
32. I note what the neighbourhood enforcement officer said about liaison with the police. Despite this, the Council has failed to provide any other evidence of liaison with the police or contacting the neighbour as claimed. This is fault.

Tampering with electricity supply

33. Again, although the Council says it spoke to the neighbour about these claims, which he always denied, it failed to provide any evidence of the actions it said it took or the problems it said it faced resolving it. This is fault.

Other complaints

34. Although the Council claimed other residents made complaints about the neighbour, with one not wanting to become involved, another failing to return calls, and a third saying it was not as bad as claimed, it provided no evidence showing this. This is fault.

Transferring the neighbour

35. The Council claimed it had tried to transfer the neighbour but provided no evidence showing this. Again, this failure amounts to fault.

Homelessness

36. The Council failed to provide any evidence of its consideration of Mr J’s homelessness request or of it advising him of his right to appeal its decision. There is nothing to show it considered whether the property had become unsuitable because it was not reasonable for him to remain there because of his neighbour’s behaviour. This is fault.
37. I am satisfied the identified fault caused Mr J an injustice. The distress it caused includes the uncertainty of not knowing whether the Council did what it said it had done in response to his reports. He has also suffered the lost opportunity of having this investigation examine the records to see exactly what the Council had done and whether or not it had followed procedure. He has suffered the frustration of not having evidence provided to show what the Council had done or not done.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. I considered our guidance on remedies.
39. I also considered the outcome of the Tenant Appeal Panel hearing and its recommendations. These included recommending officers discuss the housing allocation banding process and direct lets with Mr J, along with paying him £500.
40. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr J an apology for failing to provide evidence in response to my enquiries to support what it claimed.
2. Pay £200 to Mr J for the injustice the fault identified caused.
3. Remind officers responding to our enquiries in the future of the need to send proper supporting evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I found fault on Mr J’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman