Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council responded to his complaints about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by the occupier of the house next to his. He said that he and his family are frequently disturbed by shouting and other noise during the night. This disrupts their sleep and is generally distressing. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice and which the Council should remedy by apologising and making a payment to Mr B. It should also consider any further information Mr B provides about the current situation.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mr B. He complained about the way the Council responded to his complaints about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by the occupier of the house next to his. He said that he and his family are frequently disturbed by shouting and other noise during the night. This disrupts their sleep and is generally distressing.

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 an injustice, 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 considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

5. Mr B and his family live in a mid-terraced house. The adjoining house is privately owned by a third party. The Council placed a family in the property because it had housing responsibilities to that family. I refer to them as Family S. I cannot refer to any personal information about Family S. Mr B does not live in Redbridge’s area but in the area of council X.
6. Mr B said he complained from when Family S first moved in five years ago but his contact was with the managing agents (the Agents) and Council X. He first wrote to Redbridge in October 2020. He complained of disturbance from Family S in the night including shouting and screaming, swearing and banging. He also complained of rubbish accumulation in the garden.
7. I set out below a summary of the key events and whether I consider there was fault.

October 2020 to January 2021

8. The Council said Mr B first complained in January 2021. The information provided by the Council shows Mr B first complained in October 2020 and then chased a response. It was not until January 2021 that the Council took any action. The Council provided no explanation for this period of inaction and it is fault.

January to March 2021

9. When the Council did pick up the matter it contacted the managing agents and later Council X. And in early March sent Family S a formal warning letter that their occupation of the property was at risk. It asked Mr B to keep a log of events over the next month. There was no fault over this period. It was appropriate the Council should contact the agents as they had been dealing with the matter on a day-to-day basis so the action they had taken was relevant to any further action by the Council. The Council also formally contacted Family S putting them on notice there were issues.

April to August 2021

10. In mid-April Council X told Mr B it did not consider there was evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. Later that month Mr B sent to Redbride Council his logs of the issues he had experienced and also noise recordings.
11. The Council had contact with Family S about alternative accommodation but that did not proceed. That was not as a result of any fault by the Council.
12. In early May the Council asked the agents for more detail about its contact with Family S. I have seen no evidence to show that the information was provided or that the Council pursued it with the agents.
13. The Council referred to a visit by an officer and the agents in July but no detail of that was provided.
14. In July and August the Council responded to Mr B’s complaints. In summary the Council’s position was that because there was no independent verification of the problems Mr B reported it did not have sufficient grounds to seek to end the occupation of the property.
15. The Council’s has not provided sufficient evidence to support its view on this key point. There is no detail of the information it received from Council X of the action it had taken in respect of the reports Mr B had made of potential noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour (ASB). For the Council to be able to conclude that there were no grounds to take action against Family S it had to be satisfied that this point had been properly addressed. The Council did not have sufficient grounds to reach this conclusion.

September 2021 to November 2022

16. I cannot refer to the events over this period in detail as it would mean disclosing too much information about Family S. But, in summary, the family did not accept any of the offers the Council made and no formal action to remove the family was taken either by the Council or the owner or agents.
17. But the key point here is that the Council was proceeding on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of noise or ASB by the family and, as I explain above, there was not a sound basis for that decision. Moreover, the Council has not demonstrated that it took sufficient action to support or work with the family. There was some limited involvement from the tenancy sustainment officer but this was not sufficient given the problems Mr B was consistently reporting. The Council accepted it took too long to address the problem of rubbish accumulation in the garden.
18. There were faults by the Council but it is difficult to say what would have happened had these not occurred. It may be that even if the Council had done all it possibly could the family would only have left the property if formal action was taken. However, I consider that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely there would have been some improvement in the situation for Mr B. At the very least the rubbish should have been cleared sooner. I consider that this does amount to an injustice to Mr B for which the Council should provide a remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

19. The Council will apologise to Mr B and pay him £400 in recognition of the injustice caused to him. It will do this within one month of the final decision.
20. It will also consider any recent evidence from Mr B about the current situation and consider what action it should take. That could include engagement with Family S and alternative accommodation. The Council should provide us with evidence it has done so within two months.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There was fault which caused injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman