Audit Commission local authority inspection reports released during January 2006 included the following.
The delivery of the £19.5 million Supporting People programme provided by Bradford Metropolitan District Council is a poor zero-star service with uncertain prospects for improvement, according to a report released by the Audit Commission. Inspectors found that:
To help the service improve, inspectors made a number of recommendations, including:
The housing management service provided by Six Town Housing was rated as good with promising prospects for improvement, in a report released by the Audit Commission. The arms-length management organisation (ALMO), which manages the housing service on behalf of Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, was given a two-star rating by inspectors. This opens the door to Bury MBC receiving an initial £8.6 million of additional capital funding to improve the quality of its homes, rising to £27million in total if progress continues.
The Audit Commission's report notes that a strong customer focus exists at all levels in the ALMO. Tenants and leaseholders are encouraged to become involved and are influencing service development. In addition, the aids and adaptations service for disabled tenants is well-organised and focused on meeting people's immediate and longer-term needs. The ALMO's performance on servicing gas appliances in tenants' properties is particularly strong.
Inspectors made a number of recommendations, including the need to:
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council owns approximately 8,515 homes and has 266 leaseholders. Six Town Housing was set up as an ALMO in April 2005.
Audit Commission housing association inspection reports issued during January 2006 included the following.
The housing services provided by Arena Housing Group are good with promising prospects for improvement, according to a report released by the Audit Commission. Inspectors gave the service two-stars because they are customer focused and Arena provides good quality homes that are well maintained. Specialist teams give good support to tenants and communities. Supported and extra care services provide good quality accommodation with high levels of support to vulnerable people, and there is an effective approach to addressing anti-social behaviour.
Areas which need further attention include weaknesses in gas servicing, a lack of service standards in all areas, and some inconsistencies in contact arrangements. There are also some gaps in monitoring to ensure that services are delivered fairly to all parts of the community. To help the service improve, inspectors made a number of recommendations, including:
Seventy-two applications have been submitted for the Housing Corporation's new Gold Award competition. Launched in June 2005, the competition is open to housing associations that are able to demonstrate outstanding performance in key areas of business.
For the first year of the awards, the two themes for the competition are tackling homelessness and innovation in procurement. The Corporation has received 44 entries for the homelessness theme and 28 for innovation in procurement.
The timetable for the next stages is as follows:
Judges for the competition are:
By Angus Nurse, an Investigator in the Local Government Ombudsman's Coventry Office.
In this feature, for the Housing Monthly Diary, the Local Government Ombudsman looks back over the past few years and comments on the steady rise in the number of complaints made to the service concerning nuisance and antisocial behaviour.
Over the last few years the Ombudsmen have received an increasing number of complaints about neighbour nuisance and anti-social behaviour. At the same time, national and local government initiatives have highlighted the issue of anti-social behaviour and stressed that people should not have to put up with nuisance neighbours.
Councils have many powers available when addressing issues of neighbour nuisance and anti-social behaviour. But these are only effective if operated properly. The experience of the Ombudsmen is that straightforward administrative failures continue to undermine the action taken by councils when dealing with such complaints.
Antisocial behaviour covers a wide range of issues - including begging, graffiti, abandoning cars, street-drinking, drug-taking, physical and verbal abuse, and noise. Complaints to the Ombudsmen relate to antisocial behaviour experienced by neighbours in a residential environment.
In the year 2004/2005, the Ombudsmen investigated a total of 672 complaints about neighbour nuisance. Eleven of these resulted in formal reports by the Ombudsmen.
Nearly every complaint to the Ombudsmen includes reference to lengthy delays by councils in investigating complaints of neighbour nuisance and antisocial behaviour, or to officers not visiting within a reasonable time or their enquiries taking too long. Others complain of delays in referring the matter to legal departments and of further delays in legal advice being given.
Many of these complaints are justified and identify failings in the handling of complaints and in councils' policies and procedures.
In any complaint of antisocial behaviour it is essential that the council gathers evidence to decide whether the allegations are valid and maintains a clear record of the information provided by complainants and of any action taken as a result.
Councils will often issue diary sheets for complainants to record occurrences of nuisance and antisocial behaviour. Complainants are often critical that diary sheets are ignored, lost, or simply not taken into account and that the purpose of diary sheets is not explained to them properly.
The submission of diary sheets should not become a never-ending process. Home Office guidance is clear that in certain circumstances diary sheets in themselves will be sufficient for the court to make an assessment, particularly in interim applications. Where complainants are submitting diary sheets, a review period should be set and a plan of action made once the review period has expired.
Diary sheets can provide a basis for further investigation and evidence gathering. Many complainants are frightened about appearing in court to give evidence against their neighbours and, in such cases, councils should consider alternative means of gathering evidence. The use of noise monitoring equipment and of council officers and estate wardens, who stay in a property to record evidence, or who visit the property or area at various times in an attempt to witness the behaviour complained of, should all be considered. Councils might also consider the use of video and closed circuit television cameras or, where necessary, instructing outside agencies or liaising with the police.
Many complaints to the Ombudsman are about the council's failure to take action or about taking inappropriate action. Complainants sometimes argue that the council has used mediation inappropriately, or has persevered with it where it is clear that it is proving ineffective or counterproductive. Many complainants say they feel forced into agreeing to mediation, or that it is simply an excuse for the council to avoid addressing the complaint of anti-social behaviour. Where mediation has been attempted and failed many complainants say the council then just gives up and takes no further action.
Mediation is not an alternative to councils taking appropriate action and should not be used to 'dump' awkward cases of neighbour nuisance. Councils should assess the evidence collected during the investigation of a complaint and decide on an appropriate course of action.
The Ombudsmen's casework has highlighted instances where councils have failed to use the options available to them or have relied on a handful of 'standard' actions rather than exploring the appropriate action for the case.
The Ombudsmen frequently receive complaints that the council has served a Notice of Seeking Possession thinking that this might curb the neighbour's behaviour, but then takes no further action when it is apparent that the anti-social behaviour is continuing. Another frequent complaint is that the council issues a Noise Abatement Notice but then takes no action over repeated breaches of the Notice.
The fact that a Notice of Seeking Possession has been served is an indication that there is sufficient evidence to warrant legal action. The Ombudsmen's casework highlights that too many councils use Notices as a warning too early on in the process. If the offending behaviour does not alter and then no action is taken because insufficient evidence has been collected, the Notice of Seeking Possession will seem an empty threat. If there is genuinely sufficient evidence to serve a Notice, it is likely that there is sufficient evidence to apply for an Injunction or an ASBO. There may also be justification for action under environmental health legislation, or to pursue one of the many informal options for action available - such as an acceptable behaviour contract or parenting contract. Councils should use all the options available to them and choose the one that is appropriate to the circumstances and available evidence.
The Ombudsmen receive many complaints that councils have not returned telephone calls, not replied to letters or told people what action they are taking or going to take. While there may have been many visits, telephone calls and meetings with a complainant, one basic administrative failure is the failure to inform the complainant of the outcome of a complaint.
In cases where the council finds no evidence of antisocial behaviour requiring its intervention, it is entirely reasonable for a council to close its file on the complaint. Councils should, however, have a clear closure policy and inform the complainant of the outcome of the council's investigation and its reasons for closing the file. Where this has not been done, complainants may understandably feel that the council is allowing matters to drag on and be confused about whether complaints are still under investigation or whether the council has ended its involvement. Councils can prevent this by clearly informing the complainant in writing of the steps that have been taken to investigate a complaint and the outcome of those investigations.
Two casework examples illustrate the types of Neighbour Nuisance complaint dealt with by the Ombudsmen.
Gathering Information
Mr Bronte (not his real name for legal reasons), a council tenant with a history of drug and alcohol dependency, was moved into a bedsit next to Miss Cranford and across the passage from Miss Gaskell. Soon after he moved in, Miss Gaskell's car was attacked by one of Mr Bronte's friends, who was aggressive when she complained. His four dogs were allowed to foul the communal areas. Large groups of his friends congregated in the communal yard and smoked crack cocaine. Miss Cranford complained that he and his friends:
Once, a friend of Mr Bronte banged on her door late at night shouting that he needed a key to get into Mr Bronte's flat. On another occasion there was a fight, leaving the communal passageway covered with blood, urine and excrement, broken bottles, beer cans and plastic bags. In yet another incident, Mr Bronte was heard threatening to set fire to one of the bedsits.
Miss Cranford told the Ombudsman that several residents were worried about giving evidence against Mr Bronte and his friends because of their violence. Indeed, at one time she and her partner were advised by the police to move out because of some of the threats, which had been made against them. As a result she moved out of her flat for two months. Even so, despite their worries, Miss Cranford and another resident told the council that they would give evidence if they had to.
The Council told the Ombudsman that no resident was prepared to give evidence and that its investigation had been hampered because of this. But Miss Cranford said that she started gathering evidence from the outset, passing much of it to the police. She said that she would not have done this, nor would she have kept records of incidents, if she had not been willing to give evidence.
There was clearly confusion about whether residents were prepared to give evidence to support the Council's action to evict Mr Bronte. The Council's files did not contain information to clarify this point and no note existed of a key meeting with residents where the matter was discussed. The Ombudsman took the view that the failure to clarify this important point with the residents concerned was maladministration. It critically affected the Council's conduct of the case.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council make ex gratia payments of £2,250 each to Miss Cranford and Miss Gaskell and that it should review the way it responds to neighbour nuisance complaints.
Ineffective Action
Mr Jefferson (not his real name for legal reasons) complained to the Council on behalf of his mother, Mrs Anderson, about the neighbour nuisance she experienced on her estate, particularly from one property which was known to the police for drug dealing. Mrs Anderson complained to the police in June 2001 and the police passed her letter to the Council. But the Council took no action until invited by the police to a joint meeting in September 2001. The Council agreed to hold a follow-up meeting in October, but did not arrange it.
Mrs Anderson complained to the Chief Executive and a follow-up meeting was arranged for mid-December. The Council agreed that it would set-up a multi-agency team to deal with the whole range of problems on the estate but it did not arrange this until February 2002.
Between March and August 2002 a council officer took statements from residents, but in September 2002 a senior officer decided they were too general. Throughout this period the antisocial behaviour continued. Between October 2002 and May 2003 the Council took little further action, largely because of staff absences.
In June 2003 a temporary Tenancy Enforcement Officer was appointed and her work resulted in the main perpetrators either leaving voluntarily or being evicted. The Council's sporadic and ineffective action over a period between 18 months and two years meant that Mrs Anderson lived with fear and anxiety for much longer than was necessary and Mr Jefferson spent a great deal of time and effort in pursuing the complaint. The Council agreed to pay Mrs Anderson £1,500 in compensation and Mr Jefferson £250 in recognition of his time and trouble in making the complaint.
The Ombudsmen have identified a number of fundamental principles of good practice which councils should follow when dealing with complaints of neighbour nuisance and anti-social behaviour:
In February 2005, the Ombudsmen published a special report on neighbour nuisance and antisocial behaviour. Further information on this report and examples of neighbour nuisance cases dealt with by the Ombudsman can be found at www.lgo.org.uk.
