The London Borough of Enfield has been found at fault by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for failing to properly respond to a resident’s repeated reports of severe anti-social behaviour from a neighbouring council tenant, leaving the complainant feeling unsafe in his own home for over a year.
The investigation centred on Mr M, who began reporting issues immediately after moving into his flat in 2024. He described a pattern of behaviour from his neighbour Mr C, that included persistent screaming, swearing and making threats, foul odours and possible substance abuse. Mr M provided video evidence and repeatedly told the council the situation made him feel unsafe and unable to have visitors, urging them to intervene.
The Ombudsman’s report found the council’s response severely lacking. Despite Mr M’s multiple contacts, the council’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) team simply referred the matter to a housing officer and failed to act further.
Crucially, the ASB team did not recognise its own statutory powers to address the complaints, which extend beyond its role as a landlord and include tools like Community Protection Notices.
In the analysis of the investigation, the ombudsman notes:
‘We have no jurisdiction to consider how the Council has discharged its duties as a social landlord, including those relating to alleged ASB by one of its tenants. We therefore cannot comment on the housing officer’s role.
‘However, the Council’s powers to tackle ASB are much broader than its role as a landlord… It is concerning the ASB officer’s response was to simply refer the entire matter to the housing officer to deal with. This implies a lack of recognition from the Council’s ASB team that it had its own part to play in addressing Mr C’s behaviour.’
The council also failed to carry out a legally required Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review after Mr M requested one, despite him likely meeting the threshold of three reports within six months.
Furthermore, it neglected to conduct a risk assessment of Mr M’s vulnerability, contrary to statutory guidance which states the ‘welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration.’
‘We find the Council at fault for these reasons,’ the Ombudsman stated. The prolonged uncertainty and the council’s failure to respond to his formal complaint caused Mr M ‘significant injustice’ in the form of frustration and distress.
To remedy the injustice, the Ombudsman ordered the council to:
- Write a formal letter of apology acknowledging its failures.
- Pay Mr M £500.
- Immediately open a proper investigation into his reports, including a vulnerability risk assessment.
- Initiate the overdue ASB Case Review.
Furthermore, citing similar recent faults, the Ombudsman expressed concern over a ‘wider governance issue’ and ordered the council to develop and submit action plans within three months to improve its handling of both ASB reports and general complaints.
The council must provide evidence of compliance and report the Ombudsman’s findings to its elected members. While the Ombudsman could not order Mr M’s desired outcome of evicting his neighbour, the ruling forces the council to finally address the case through proper, legally defined channels.
Leave a Reply