Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to properly investigate reports of noise and anti-social behaviour. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to properly investigate his reports of alleged statutory noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) caused by people using a nearby skate park.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have looked at what happened from June 2022 through to September 2023. I am considering the action of Dorset Council and not how the Police or other agencies acted as they fall outside of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

8. A skate park has been built near Mr D’s home. In April 2022 Mr D and seven other residents made a joint report to the Council about noise nuisance coming from the skate park (hereafter referred to as the park). The Council’s Environmental Health Team investigated reports of noise nuisance.

Events I have investigated

9. In June 2022 the Council held a meeting with Environmental Health Officers to review the noise complaints received from Mr D and other residents. 17 targeted visits and an additional 10 ad-hoc visits had been carried out since April. Digital noise monitors had also been installed in some homes (not in Mr D’s). This evidence was assessed along with CCTV from the site and Officers concluded there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance (SNN). That month the Council notified Mr D that Officers had reviewed the evidence about an alleged noise nuisance at the park. They had not found evidence of a SNN and so could not take any enforcement action.
10. Following more reports about noise and ASB from residents the Council held a further review of the case in September. Again, no evidence of a SNN was found. The Council agreed to refer the case onto the Community Safety Team (CST) as it could look at the alleged ASB issue. On 21 September the CST opened an investigation to consider reports about ASB at the park. It asked Community Safety Officers to patrol the site and report back any incidents. Towards the end of September Mr D emailed the Council about music and noise at the park. The Police also emailed the Council confirming it had attended to Mr D’s reports but had not witnessed any incidents. At the end of the month the CST noted the patrols at the park had not evidenced any actionable issues.
11. In October the Council installed another digital noise monitor at a local property. No evidence of a SNN was captured. Two separate Environmental Health Team reviews of the case took place and concluded there was no evidence of SNN to allow the Council to take enforcement action. In November further “high visibility” patrols by a Youth Team took place.
12. In January 2023 the Council received more complaints from residents about increased noise and ASB at the park. A third digital noise monitor was installed at a resident’s home. In March the Council reviewed the evidence and found no SNN.
13. At the end of March, the CST and Police met residents to discuss the noise and ASB complaints. The CST agreed to continue working with the Police using patrols and CCTV to gather any actionable evidence of offences. Subsequently permanent CCTV was installed at the park. Patrols continued during 2023.
14. In June Mr D told the Council that ASB was daily, and he wanted the Council to take action. In July and August Mr D continued to report incidents to the Council’s ASB Team and Environmental Health. These were forwarded to the CST who were taking the lead on the case.
15. The CST investigation is open and ongoing. Patrols continue and no incidents have been witnessed during 2023 by Officers.

What should have happened

16. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate a potential statutory noise nuisance.
17. When the Council receives a noise report from a resident the Environmental Health Team will ask an Officer to consider the case. The Officer can ask the complainant to complete diary sheets. In addition, they can carry out site visits and fit digital noise monitoring equipment to record the noise. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the Officer will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. It is for the Officer to use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory noise nuisance. If no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance is found by the Council, it has no basis to take enforcement action.
18. Where a SNN has not been found the Council can consider if the CST should take over the case and investigate the alleged ASB. The CST investigate reports of ASB. It can ask Community Safety Officers to patrol a site to gather evidence of any ASB. CCTV can also be installed at a site to be both a deterrent and to gather evidence. The Council cannot take enforcement action against a person for ASB without sufficient contemporaneous evidence that meets the threshold for formal action.

Was there fault by the Council

19. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.
20. The Council considered reports of an alleged noise nuisance from Mr D. It assessed this case alongside other complaints from residents and the evidence gathered which included noise recordings, site visits and diary sheets. The case has been subject to three separate reviews by Senior Officers and each time they have concluded there is insufficient evidence of a statutory noise nuisance to enable formal enforcement action. I have found no evidence of procedural fault by the Council. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, the evidence it gathered and its own policies. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when reaching a view on the noise issue and I cannot therefore criticise it.
21. In respect of the case transferring to the CST, again I find no evidence of fault. The Council had the right to refer matters to the CST once it had carried out several noise reviews and found no evidence of a statutory nuisance. The CST can consider if there is evidence of ASB and share information with other agencies including the Police.
22. Once the CST opened its investigation it has acted in line with procedures. It instructed Officers to patrol the site, install permanent CCTV and assess evidence gathered to see whether there is anything actionable for either the Council or other agencies. It also met residents to discuss their concerns. No evidence has been found that would enable the Council to take formal enforcement action. The Council continues to consider reports of ASB and patrol the area.
23. I appreciate my decision will be disappointing for Mr D. It is important to note the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr D disagrees with the decisions the Council made.

Back to top

Draft decision

24. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman