Less is more

Brian Jones, a housing officer, is talking to a tenant on the phone in the housing office. The tenant's neighbour is playing loud music and the tenant is asking Brian to come out and hear the "nuisance" for himself. A colleague, Julie, offers to go out and listen to the music herself to confirm whether or not it is loud. Brian tells her that the tenant, Angela, has been complaining for three or four months about loud music from her neighbour, Sheila. He also warns Julie that Angela has made complaints about Sheila's son who by all accounts is "unruly and cheeky" to his neighbours. Brian is uncertain about how serious the complaints are. He has spoken before to Sheila after her son was involved in vandalising the local school, but other than a record of this conversation, there is nothing else on file.

Julie visits Angela. As they stand in the living room they can hear music coming from next door. Meanwhile, Angela explains how she and her two sons have been subjected to a campaign of abuse and harassment from Sheila's 12-year-old son: over the past few weeks, he has started to bully Angela's youngest son.

When asked what Sheila has done about this behaviour, Angela says that Sheila does not care or simply cannot control her son's behaviour. Angela is fed up with complaining to her neighbour, to the police and to the local housing office. All she wants to do is to move to another home.

Comments
The biggest problem in this case is the time lost since the problem first started and the lack of progress in the investigation. Brian has known about the problem for several months. Angela is fed up with complaining and simply wants to move. There is little information or evidence on file to indicate whether Angela's complaints are justified.

This is a typical case where both the complainant and the housing officer become uncertain as to how to make progress. This is a shame, as such cases can be resolved relatively easily by applying the basic principles of good tenancy enforcement: that is, the housing officer must quickly gather evidence to establish the extent and seriousness of the complaints and make strong challenges to the alleged perpetrator.

Left as it is, this case will continue to niggle away at the housing officer's time. The case will not go away by itself, it needs dealing with. Eventually it could even escalate into something more serious.

A recommended action plan
Follow the basic steps of your neighbour nuisance procedure manual. Interview the complainant; invest the time at an early stage of the investigation to find out exactly what their story is. Visit the complainant, make a list of all the problems and seek any names and addresses of any witnesses they can provide. Explore all possible solutions, including mediation, explaining clearly what possible solutions there are and what the complainant's role will be in each of them.

Explain exactly what you, as landlord, can and can't do, and always leave the complainant a diary sheet to record further incidents. Keep very good records of this important interview, and don't forget to leave incident diaries with the complainant.

Once you have a good account of the complainant's version of events, seek an urgent interview with their neighbour. Be clear about what the problems are. On each specific allegation (in Angela's case, the loud music, the verbal abuse by Sheila's son, and so on) seek an explanation and note the person's response.

Unless you have witnessed certain incidents yourself, or have seen powerful evidence, you probably cannot do anything more than confirm with the alleged perpetrator that if the allegations are true, then they must stop immediately. Confirm the details of this interview and warning in writing to them.

If your first challenge and round of interviews do not work and the problems continue, you will have to decide what further steps can be taken. Do not let the case drift.

If you are uncertain as to the truth or seriousness of the tenant's complaints as written down on their diary sheets, then think of ways you can verify them sooner rather than later. For example, Brian could lend Angela a camcorder to record any loud music or abuse from her neighbour's son; or install a sound box in Angela's home so that she can record noise nuisance for you. You can then see or listen to the evidence and decide for yourself if it warrants further action.

By the end of a reasonable period of time (say, six weeks) you should be able to decide whether or not the tenant is facing serious problems from her neighbours.

After two months, this evidence should include:

• detailed incident diaries from the complainant listing all incidents since you warned the alleged nuisance-maker
  
• interview notes on file with any other witnesses you have interviewed (neighbours, police officers, local shop keepers, and so on)
  
• warning letters to the alleged perpetrator
  
• any video or audio tapes supporting the complainant's testimony.

If this evidence does not persuade you that the complaints are justified, or if the evidence shows that the incidents are not serious enough to warrant formal action by the landlord, then this must be explained to the complainant and the case properly closed.

If mediation does not work, if housing officer challenges do not work and if the problems continue, then you must take legal action to stop the nuisance and the tenancy breaches. In this case the most likely route for Brian and his colleagues is to seek an injunction against Sheila for tenancy breaches. If injunctions do not work, possession proceedings should be started.

Finally, consider what assistance could be provided by social services, the probation service or the education department in these types of cases. It is best practice to seek this help at the beginning, and in writing.

What actually happened
With the help of a specialist tenancy enforcement officer, Angela's case was fully investigated: she was interviewed, provided with support, given a sound box and encouraged to keep written records of each subsequent problem. Despite strong warnings to Sheila about her conduct and that of her son, the problems continued. Sheila was eventually evicted and the housing association obtained an antisocial behaviour order against her son.