Womens nightmare prolonged by council

Two women lived in a Victorian terraced street. Ms Cranford* lived in one of five units created out of the renovation of one large property. Ms Gaskell* lived in the neighbouring council-owned terraced house.

Ms Cranford lived in the ground floor Flat 1 adjacent to a covered passageway that provides access to other units in the property, as well as a large communal area, garden and car parking. Her basement bedroom lay below the passageway and was ventilated by a ground-level grille in the passageway.

Shortly after she moved in, in January 2002, she discovered that her neighbour, Mr Bronte*, kept dogs that defecated and urinated in the common areas. He had large numbers of unruly and threatening visitors, some of whom also urinated in the common areas, in particular in the passageway between the properties, and the urine drained into her bedroom.

Ms Cranford said that she also witnessed many incidents of drug dealing and drug abuse by Mr Bronte and his friends.

Mr Bronte had moved into Flat 2 following a fire in his previous council flat. The council had been preparing to take possession proceedings of the previous flat for breaches of his tenancy conditions. His new tenancy agreement contained special conditions relating to monthly inspections of the property by council officers.

There were fundamental errors, amounting to maladministration, in the way the council handled Mr Bronte’s rehousing. When giving him his new tenancy, the council failed formally to end his previous one. The confusion over his position as a secure tenant at the previous address seems, on its own, to have delayed his eviction by at least six months.

From May 2001, complaints were made to the council from the owners of Flat 1 and from Ms Gaskell. The council wrote to Mr Bronte about the complaints on 2 August 2001 and stated that access would be required on 7 August for the monthly inspection. There is no record of this or any other visit made by council officers to Mr Bronte.

Over the Christmas period 2001, the police raided Mr Bronte’s flat, following which the windows and door were boarded up. Ms Cranford moved in after Christmas, understanding that Mr Bronte would not be returning to his flat. But he did. He and his numerous friends played loud music, created a lot of noise and disturbance, and were aggressive if approached. Ms Cranford complained to the council in February 2002, and began to keep a record of the various incidents. The police had to be called to fighting incidents on several occasions.

Council’s basic errors

There were basic errors in the council’s handling of the two women’s complaints:

He had unruly, threatening visitors, some of whom urinated in the passageway. The urine drained into a neighbour’s bedroom

• Although Ms Gaskell phoned Officer A many times, few records of her calls were made and he failed to visit her or Mr Bronte
• Housing officers failed to send residents nuisance diaries until it was suggested by legal officers in March 2002, and even then Ms Cranford was not included
• The complainants were not told about the council’s out-of-hours noise service and their complaints were not referred to the council’s environmental health department.

The council failed to have a clear procedure on dealing with antisocial behaviour in place, even though it had circulated comprehensive guidance in draft in 1999. This was maladministration.

The council pursued eviction proceedings, with a court date set for July 2002. There is confusion about whether residents were prepared to give evidence against Mr Bronte. Ms Cranford said that she and another resident told the council they were not keen but would give evidence if they had to. Council officers believed no residents were prepared to give evidence, but there are no records of this. No note exists of a key meeting with residents where the matter was discussed.

This was maladministration and critically affected the council’s conduct of the case.

In July 2002, the court case was adjourned. It was only then that the council considered alterative means of gathering evidence, such as noise monitoring equipment, video and CCTV cameras. Eventually, cameras were installed but were either never switched on or ran out of film. In any event, they never provided useable evidence. These failures were maladministration.

In January 2003, Mr Bronte moved back to his old property (with a new tenancy agreement).

The council’s failings led to both complainants suffering serious ill effects from the antisocial behaviour of their neighbour for a year longer than they need have done.

The ombudsman recommended that the council pay both complainants £2,000 compensation, plus £250 each in recognition of their time and trouble in making their complaints. He also ordered the council to review the way it responds to neighbour nuisance complaints to ensure that, as far as possible, the maladministration identified does not recur.