Section: Antisocial Behaviour & Nuisance

New Regulations

The Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) (Commencement and Savings) Amendment Order 2005 Scottish SI No. 553 (C. 27)

This Order amends the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) (Commencement and Savings) Order 2004.

The effect of this Order is to bring forward to 9 November 2005 the commencement of order and regulation making powers contained in Parts 7 and 8 of the 2004 Act.

It also sets as 31 March 2006 the date for commencement of all remaining provisions of that Act.
The Antisocial Behaviour Notice (Management Control Orders) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 Scottish SI 561

These Regulations make provision for the expenditure, which a local authority may incur when a management control order made by a sheriff in terms of section 74 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 is in place over a house. It also provides that a local authority may recover expenditure from a landlord any time when expenditure exceeds income.
The Antisocial Behaviour Notice (Landlord Liability) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 Scottish SI 562

These Regulations prescribe the circumstances in which a landlord, who is subject to an antisocial behaviour notice under Part 7 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004, shall be liable for prescribed expenditure.
The Antisocial Behaviour Notice (Advice and Assistance) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 Scottish SI 563

These Regulations require a local authority to give advice and assistance to a landlord upon whom it proposes to serve an antisocial behaviour notice under section 68 of the 2004 Act.

Handling of Neighbour Dispute Criticised

Ombudsman Patricia Thomas issued a report on the investigation of a complaint, about neighbour nuisance, against Tower Hamlets Council.

Mrs. T complained that the Council failed to investigate properly and take appropriate action after her allegations of harassment and noise nuisance from a neighbour.

The Ombudsman found that there was a lack of proper co-ordination between different Council departments and externally with other agencies over a period of time. The report notes that:
- The Council served a Noise Abatement Notice in February 2004, and witnessed breaches of the Notice during the following two months.
- The Chief Executive then wrote to Mrs. T and reassured her that the matter would be taken to Court within the next month. However, no such action was taken; instead, a final warning letter was issued to the perpetrator.
- The failure to inform Mrs. T, for whom this outcome was both confusing and frustrating, was maladministration.
The Council has accepted the Ombudsman's findings and has already begun the task of redesigning its processes relating to the handling of antisocial behaviour. It is reviewing responsibilities, and internal relationships and protocols between the Council's directorates, and setting up a vulnerability panel with cross-directorate representation to address such cases effectively in future. In addition, the Council has agreed to:
- provide Mrs. T with urgent priority for rehousing;
- pay her compensation of £3,500; and
- apologise to her for the distress she has been caused.
L G Ombudsman Report No. 04/C/14687

Lack of Action Taken on Nuisance Complaint

Local Government Ombudsman Jerry White issued a report on his investigation about the way Southwark Council responded to a complaint of neighbour nuisance. The background details are as follows:
- Mr. K, who lives in a downstairs maisonette, complained to the Council's Neighbourhood Housing Office about noise and other nuisance from a flat upstairs.
- The Council took no action to deal with this complaint or a subsequent petition about noise nuisance signed by Mr. K and two neighbours.
- One of Mr. K's upstairs neighbours then complained that another neighbour had been racially abusive toward her. Officers decided that Mr. K was responsible, although the evidence available did not support this. It later became clear that one of Mr. K's neighbours was responsible.
- The Council referred the matter to its Antisocial Behaviour Unit. There was a delay in taking the complaint up. The officer responsible quickly decided that he could not substantiate the allegation of racial abuse and tried to investigate the allegations of noise nuisance. However, there was a succession of tenants in the flat upstairs and each time the tenant changed, evidence had to be collected afresh.
- The complaint was investigated by the Council's Housing Performance and Compliance Unit. Mr. K complains that this resulted in a whitewash. The officer in charge of the Unit now accepts that the evidence that emerged during the Ombudsman's investigation would have led her to change her findings in part.
The Ombudsman's report finds maladministration causing injustice because Mr. K suffered almost a year of avoidable noise nuisance as a result of the Council's failure to investigate his complaints. The Council has agreed to:
- apologise to Mr. K and pay him £1,000;
- remove the allegations of racial abuse from its files;
- provide training to its staff as appropriate in the operation of its procedures for dealing with neighbour nuisance; and
- take action to investigate Mr. K's complaints and, if practical, remedy any nuisance.
The Ombudsman decided to complete his investigation and issue this report, as it illustrates a matter of public interest.

L G Ombudsman Report No. 04/B/05253

© Copyright 1996 - 2008 UK Housing Ltd.

Section: Antisocial Behaviour & Nuisance

New Regulations

Handling of Neighbour Dispute Criticised

Lack of Action Taken on Nuisance Complaint

Housing Monthly Diary

Issue: January 2006 Reporting on Sept.-Dec. 2005

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods