The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about noise and anti-social behaviour from a neighbouring property. She does not consider the Council did enough to stop the problems. There was no fault by the Council.
The complaint
Miss X complained about noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property. She does not consider the Council did enough to stop the problems.
Miss X said the noise and ASB kept her awake at night.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation I have considered the following: The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
The Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Anti-social behaviour powers. Statutory guidance for frontline professionals (published July 2014, revised June 2022).
The Council’s Noise Procedure.
The Council’s Antisocial Behaviour Procedure.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Guidance and legislation Statutory nuisance Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include: noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street smoke from premises smells from industry, trade or business premises artificial light from premises insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises accumulation of deposits on premises 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 premises; and / or injure health or be likely to injure health.
There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
Antisocial behaviour Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
For example, they may approach a complaint: as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution; as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility; as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub; as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant; or using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The 2014 Act introduced six new powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are: the power to issue community protection notices (CPN); the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO); the power to close premises for a specified period of time; a civil injunction (a court order, which can be made upon application by the local authority or other agencies); a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.
Councils and the police can issue Community Protection Notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is having a negative effect on the community's quality of life, and which they decide is unreasonable. CPNs require the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to ensure it is not repeated. Failure to comply is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
A CPN can be appealed in the Magistrates' Court within 21 days by the recipient if they disagree with the council’s decision.
The Council’s procedures Noise nuisance can be reported to the Council online. The Council advises people to keep a noise diary to record the dates and times of the noise.
If the person responsible for the noise is a Council tenant its housing team may be able to take direct action.
Noise nuisance is also classed as ASB under the Council’s policy and can be reported online to the Council’s ASB team.
There are three categories of ASB under the Council’s policy.
Category 1 is extreme cases needing an urgent response. This includes things like physical violence and domestic abuse.
Category 2 is for serious cases but not requiring an immediate response. Such as aggressive or abusive behaviour and regular noise disturbance or drug and alcohol abuse.
Category 3 is for minor nuisances like low level noise and pet nuisance.
Where appropriate, the Council will work with other agencies like the police, social services, social landlords, and voluntary agencies.
The Council’s enforcement policy states its role involves actively working with people to assist with compliance. It aims to change the alleged offender’s behaviour, deter future non-compliance, and change attitudes.
What happened Miss X lives near social housing managed, on behalf of the Council, by a charitable organisation working with homeless people. The location of the social housing is behind Miss X’s home.
During the COVID-19 pandemic the Council sought to reduce the number of homeless people in the area. This was in line with Government guidance about the national response to the pandemic.
The Council placed some homeless people in the social housing near to Miss X. The social housing in this case consists of some houses in multiple occupation (HMO).
Relevant to this complaint, at the start of 2021 Miss X experienced noise nuisance from one of the HMOs. I will refer to it as Property A.
Miss X emailed the Council on 21 February 2021. She said there was a party at Property A which started at midnight and continued until 6am.
Miss X sent diary sheets to the Council in May. The Council confirmed it was aware of the noise issues and was working with the police.
Miss X asked whether the estate manager had written to Property A about ASB. If not, Miss X said she wanted to complain because she felt the estate manager was not doing anything.
The Council told Miss X several agencies were working with the police to address the problems, but not all Council properties have an estate manager. It said its environmental health department sent a warning letter on 11 May and, if the noise continues, it will need to witness it, such as by taking noise recordings.
Miss X then spoke to the police, who told her to log any further incidents and send the details to the Council.
The Council sent a stage one complaint response on 8 June 2021. It told Miss X: It leased Property A from a private owner in September 2020 to provide housing for rough sleepers under a Government initiative as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
A local housing charity manages Property A under an agreement with the Council. The charity is responsible for dealing with ASB at the property. All residents in the property have a tenancy with the Council and evictions can only take place through court action. The housing is not long term, and the charity works with tenants to help them move to long term housing.
It sent Miss X’s noise logs to the charity and worked with other agencies to respond. The charity spoke with residents and there was a multi-agency meeting with the police in April.
It was investigating whether it could take legal action against one of the residents it believes is responsible for most noise and ASB.
The charity continues to work with tenants to support them to stop engaging in ASB by providing activities and training. It is also working to move some tenants on.
The Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint. It said it and the charity acted on ASB and will continue to do so.
Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response. She said the action it took had not resolved the noise or ASB and she sent a video showing another incident at Property A.
The Council sent its final complaint response on 17 June 2021. It recognised the actions it took had not yet resolved ASB and noise issues. It said it was seeking legal advice on evicting one of the tenants and the housing charity continued to engage with them. It said it was taking suitable action but cannot speed up the matter as it was following legislation and the court process.
Miss X sent more diary sheets to the Council in late July 2021.The Council sent a warning letter to Property A in early August.
My investigation In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it acted swiftly to concerns raised by Miss X and other residents. This led to a tenant being evicted from Property A.
Analysis Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman is that the Council did not do enough to stop the noise and ASB.
I appreciate the noise disturbance and ASB Miss X describes will have been frustrating and distressing. It often occurred late at night and went on for several hours. I therefore do not dismiss Miss X’s complaint, but I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council or the housing charity acting on its behalf.
Whenever the Council investigates noise nuisance or ASB, there is an evidence gathering process it must complete before it can start any formal action against an alleged perpetrator.
Under their agreement, the housing charity was responsible for investigating ASB. However, the Council must retain oversight as the charity is acting on the Council’s behalf.
As this complaint involved a tenant, the Council and the housing charity also had to be aware of tenancy agreement. They decided the best approach was to look at evicting the tenant. Similar to formal action under noise nuisance or ASB legislation, the Council and the housing charity had to follow the correct process when it came to evicting the tenant.
In this case I have seen evidence the charity tried to work constructively with the tenant to support them, make them understand the impact of their behaviour, and try to change it. The charity arranged employment and skills training and recreational activities. Unfortunately, the tenant failed to attend or engage.
I found the housing charity’s approach of offering support was in keeping with the Council’s ASB policy.
At the same time, the charity also sent warning letters to the tenant which threatened eviction if their behaviour did not improve.
Eviction is not a simple or quick process, and I did not find evidence of fault or delay here. The tenant has now been evicted and it is hoped this will lead to an improvement for Miss X and residents.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman