Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to act to prevent noise nuisance from her neighbour after serving an enforcement notice. We find it appropriately gathered and considered evidence to decide there had not been a breach of the notice. However, we find it gave Mrs X confusing and misleading information about whether officers had witnessed a breach of the notice. It failed to pick this mistake up in its investigation of her complaint. It has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £150 to remedy distress caused by these faults.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to act to prevent noise nuisance from music played by her neighbours. She says the noise is continuing and is severely affecting her health and wellbeing and the Council’s failure to control this is causing her serious distress.
2. Mrs X also complains about the Council’s failure to investigate her reports of other anti-social behaviour by her neighbour.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the complaint covered by paragraph 1 of this summary. I have not investigated the complaint at paragraph 2 for the reasons set out in paragraph 37.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint.
8. I asked the Council questions about the complaint and considered its case records.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
10. I gave the Council and Mrs X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered Mrs X’s comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

11. Mrs X has made reports to the Council about anti-social noise from her neighbours since November 2017. The Council wrote to other local residents to ask whether they had experienced problems. Its letter asked residents to report any anti-social behaviour. It wrote to the neighbour to warn them of the consequences of continued anti-social behaviour. It installed noise monitoring equipment at Mrs X’s property.
12. The Council served a noise abatement notice on Mrs X’s neighbour in March 2018. It gave Mrs X a diary to record noise incidents and advised her to contact the out of hours team if the problem persisted.
13. Mrs X told the Council the problem was continuing. It made joint visits to Mrs X with police witness support officers. It wrote to the neighbour to warn of the consequences if they continued with anti-social behaviour.
14. Officers visited Mrs X on 18 April 2018 to witness a noise report she had made. Its noise nuisance report for the visit said officers could hear people talking in the garden but could not hear music playing. Mrs X’s recollection is that the officer who visited told her he had witnessed a noise nuisance nuisance.
15. The Council’s case note from the next day stated it called Mrs X that day to tell her that the out of hours team “had visited last night… and witnessed the loud music at statutory nuisance level and was a breach of the EPA 1990 Section 80 notice served upon the accused”.
16. Then the Council’s case record for 24 April states it visited Mrs X that day and explained that “the out of hours had visited [on the 18 April]… and witnessed noise but not a statutory nuisance level so unable to get a breach on the EPA 1990 sec 80 notice”. There is no explanation for why there was this apparent change in decision.
17. I asked the Council to explain this contradiction in evidence. It said that, having reviewed its records, it had given Mrs X wrong information about the visit on the 19 April. It should not have told her it had witnessed evidence of a breach.
18. The Council’s again installed noise monitoring equipment in May 2018. It did not record noise at a level the Council considered a statutory noise nuisance. The Council also visited Mrs X during this time. She told it the neighbour was turning the music down when the out of hours team visited and had moved music equipment away from the room being monitored. The Council also spoke, in July, to Mrs X’s daughter who had recorded noise on her phone. It decided that this was not sufficient evidence of a breach of the notice.
19. Because of its concerns the Council visited Mrs X and her daughter with the police in late July. The Council explained its powers and those of the police and how the out of hours service worked. It referred her to victim support. It again installed noise monitoring equipment in late July into August. It sent a warning letter to the neighbour.
20. The Council assessed the recordings made by the noise recording equipment and the diaries completed by Mrs X. It decided they did not show evidence of statutory noise nuisance. It visited Mrs X in August at agreed times in the early morning, four times in one week. The officer did not witness evidence of a statutory nuisance.
21. The Council contacted Mrs X in early September to say it intended to close the case because of lack of evidence of statutory nuisance. She asked it to keep the case open. It wrote to her on 17 September to say it planned to close the case. It asked her to contact it if the problems started again. It explained she could also consider private legal action.
22. The Council closed the case in January 2019. It says Mrs X has not reported noise problems since then. It told me it would reopen the case if she reported continued noise problems that it considered were possible evidence of statutory nuisance. Mrs X told me she has not reported noise again because the Council officers have said if they cannot hear the noise from outside they will not come inside.

Mrs X’s complaint to the Council

23. Mrs X complained to the Council about how it had dealt with her case in early April 2019. The Council responded at stage one, saying it had also spoken to her neighbours about the problem. Mrs X complained again in April 2019. She said her neighbours were continuing to play loud music throughout the night into the morning. She was not getting enough sleep and her health was suffering because of the noise.
24. She said the Council had delivered letters to her neighbours but not spoken to them as it said it had done. She said she could not report the noise to the out of hours service because the noise was not loud enough for them to hear outside.
25. The Council replied in May 2019. It explained it had not spoken to the neighbours so it upheld her complaint and apologised for the mistake in its correspondence. It said it had served an abatement notice on the neighbour in March 2018 under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Since then it understood the situation had improved though Mrs X could still hear noise every night.
26. It explained to take further formal action it needed evidence of a breach of the abatement notice. It encouraged Mrs X to contact the out of hours service when the noise was happening so officers could witness the noise from inside the property. It referred Mrs X to the Ombudsman.
27. The Council told me if Mrs X is still experiencing problems from noise caused by her neighbour, she should report it to them and it will reopen its investigation. It said Mrs X would not let out of hours officers enter her property and so they have not been able to witness noise heard through dividing walls.
28. Mrs X told me she continues to severely suffer because of noise from her neighbour.

My findings

29. After issuing the noise abatement notice on Mrs X’s neighbour the Council responded to Mrs X’s continued reports of noise, warning the neighbour, visiting Mrs X in response to her reports and installing noise monitoring equipment.
30. The Council considered evidence gathered and was entitled to decide these did not show a breach of the notice had occurred. Its decision to close Mrs X’s case in January 2019 was made without fault. It correctly told her it would consider any future reports she made.
31. However, the Council gave Mrs X confusing and incorrect information about the outcome of its visit in April 2018. It told her it had witnessed a statutory noise nuisance and had enough evidence to take action when, according to its noise monitoring record, this was not the case. I cannot now say which record of events was accurate.
32. When Mrs X raised this inconsistency with the Council as part of her complaint, it wrongly told her it had no record of giving her the incorrect advice. This was despite its case notes, made at the time, showing it had done so. These back up Mrs X’s own recollection of what the officer told her at the time.
33. These were faults, causing Mrs X avoidable distress, particularly as she felt the Council was challenging her recollection of what it had told her in April 2018. It should apologise and pay Mrs X £150 to remedy distress caused by these faults.
34. In Mrs X’s complaint to the Council she reported ongoing noise nuisance problems. It appropriately advised her to contact its out of hours team when noise was happening so they could assess the situation and decide what action to take. This are actions taken without fault.
35. In its apology to Mrs X the Council can explain to her how she can report continued problems and what it will do in response.

Agreed action

36. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs X for giving her confusing and misleading information about the outcome of its visit in April 2018, and for wrongly telling her it had no record of this.
• Pay Mrs X £150.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault leading to personal injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice and prevent recurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

38. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to address her allegations of her neighbour’s non-noise related anti-social behaviour. This is because these are matters for the police to investigate. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the police.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman