The tenant who knew too much

The incidents involved items being thrown into Chaudhury's garden, noise from banging, music and shouting, racial abuse and physical threats. Chaudhury complained to the council about more than 150 incidents over a five-year period.

Eventually, after five years, the neighbour was evicted.

Harassment procedure
The local government ombudsman found that the council had a detailed procedure note for dealing with complaints about harassment. But this procedure was not followed.

Although Chaudhury repeatedly complained of harassment and racial abuse, and a number of the council's own letters referred to racial harassment, the council did not take seriously Chaudhury's claim that he was being harassed until it received corroborative evidence from another witness after some four years.

The ombudsman found little evidence to suggest that Chaudhury's complaints were handled in line with the council's own procedures. That failure to follow these rules was the principal cause of the mishandling of the complaints.

If the harassment procedure had been followed, Chaudhury would have been interviewed about his complaints of racial harassment. He was not.

Counter-allegations
Chaudhury's neighbour made some counter-allegations and, under the procedures, Chaudhury should have been given an opportunity to comment.

He was not.

Under the stated procedures Chaudhury's case should have been reviewed each month by the area manager. This did not happen. Each incident was dealt with in isolation.

Chaudhury complained to the council about more than 150 incidents over a five-year period including noise from banging and shouting, racial abuse and physical threats

The harassment procedure stressed the importance of gathering corroborative evidence and that should have included seeking information from neighbours. This was not done.

Protocol also required a multi-agency approach to ending harassment. Chaudhury's neighbour was a chronic alcoholic. Some of his friends were street drinkers who stayed at his home overnight or for extended periods. The involvement of other agencies might have helped the council to understand the neighbour's behaviour better and might have involved offering some support to Chaudhury.

The council accepted that its communication with Chaudhury was not satisfactory and that it should have been more proactive in investigating the complaints by interviewing Chaudhury, installing noise monitoring equipment and either transferring the neighbour to other accommodation or helping him to deal with his problems.

A bit of background
It seemed clear to the ombudsman from the investigation that Chaudhury was treated inappropriately because of his background.

He had formerly worked in the council's housing department and, at the time of these events, was working for another council.

Council officers took the view that, because of Chaudhury's background in housing and his knowledge of council procedures, he was attempting to manipulate the situation to achieve the objective of having the neighbour removed from his flat.

Council staff doubted that Chaudhury's complaints were genuine.

In effect, Chaudhury knew too much. He used the right words and knew what action ought to be taken. However, the ombudsman observed that, in view of Chaudhury's background, it was unreasonable to expect him to phrase his complaint any other way.

Outcome
The council agreed to pay £1800 in compensation to Chaudhury in recognition of the length of time he was subjected to harassment before effective action was taken. The ombudsman agreed that was a satisfactory outcome.