Summary: There was some delay in the Environmental Health Departments response to complaints about noise. The injustice has already been remedied, as the Council is arranging to install sound insulation and has made a financial payment in response to a previous complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Environmental Health Department has not responded adequately to complaints about noise nuisance from the flat above.
2. Mr X says that he suffers from loud noise from the occupant in the flat above and the housing department has delayed installing the sound insulation.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about the response of the Environmental Health department to his noise complaints. The final section of this statement contains my reason(s) for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the papers sent by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
8. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
9. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mr X complained to the Council in September 2015. The Environmental Health Department sent a warning letter to Mr X’s neighbour about the noise and asked the housing department to investigate complaints about the lack of sound insulation.
11. Mr X was asked to keep a diary of the noise in October 2015 and the housing department carried out works to the flooring of the upstairs flat in November 2015. The housing department asked in November 2015 if the Environmental Health Department could install a noise monitor.
12. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) told Mr X the noise monitor had been repaired and was available in January 2016. Mr X told the Council his neighbour was away until April 2016 but he still wanted the noise monitor installed. The Council told Mr X it would install the noise monitor when his neighbour returned.
13. The EHO installed the noise monitor in Mr X’s flat on 12 February 2016. Mr X told the Council it was broken on 23 February. The Council said it was normal to monitor noise for one week.
14. The EHO said there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance on the noise recorder on 24 May 2016.
15. The Housing department carried out some works to the floorboards in September 2016 but Mr X complained the noise was still happening in November 2017. Mr X made an official complaint to the Council and the Council responded in December 2016.
16. Mr X made a further complaint about the noise in February 2017. Officers visited the flats, with one officer walking around in the flat above and another in Mr X’s flat, listening to the noise. Officers concluded the noise was not intrusive and advised Mr X to call the noise team if there were further problems.
17. Mr X made further complaints about the noise in March and April 2017, and the EHO sent him diary sheets.
18. The Council installed noise recording equipment for a second time in May 2017, after Mr X made a further official complaint. The EHO said the results were recordings of ‘very short duration creaking floor’. The Council carried out a subjective sound insulation test in August 2017. This concluded that further sound isolation works were required to the party floor to reduce the sounds from normal footfall in the flat above. The EHO made these recommendations to the housing management company but could not take formal action against another department in the same Council. The EHO said the results would not require the service of an improvement notice if the flat was not managed by the Council.
19. Mr X complained to the Housing Ombudsman about the Council’s response to his complaints about noise from the upstairs tenant.
20. The Housing Ombudsman decided the complaint in February 2018. The Housing Ombudsman found there was service failure by the Council in relation to:
• The handling of Mr X’s reports from the floorboards, and noise nuisance by his neighbour in the flat above; and
• The handling of Mr X’s formal complaint on the issue.
21. The Housing Ombudsman recommended:
• the Council should pay Mr X £300 compensation, £200 in respect of its handling of Mr X’s reports about the floorboards and noise and £100 in respect of the Council’s handling of Mr X’s formal complaint.
• The Council should provide Mr X with a copy of the reports of its findings of a subjective noise test to the property or provide him with a written explanation why it could not do so
• The Council should formally review the suggestions to insulate the ceiling for Mr X’s property and tell him of the decision.
22. The Council’s housing department emailed Mr X in March 2019 to say it was hopeful it could move him to temporary accommodation in the next week so the works to the sound insulation could be carried out. At the time of writing this report, the work has not been carried out.

My analysis

23. Mr X’s has complained about the Council’s response to his complaints about the noise from the upstairs flat.
24. The Environmental Health Department sent him diary sheets, visited, monitored the noise and referred the problem with the sound insulation to the housing department. The EHO investigated the complaint and decided the noise was not a statutory noise nuisance so it could not take formal action against the neighbour.
25. Unfortunately, I cannot investigate the housing department’s actions, so if Mr X wishes to complain about delays in installing the sound insulation since February 2018 he will need to make a new complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
26. There is evidence of some delay by the Environmental Health department. It took 3 months for the EHO to install the noise monitor in February 2016 and then another 3 months to tell Mr X of the results. Some of this delay was outside the Council’s control, as Mr X’s neighbour was away.
27. There was then a further period of time, from May 2016 to May 2017 when Mr X made several noise complaints before the EHO installed a second noise monitor. Again, there is evidence of some delay in the EHO’s response.
28. From August 2017 there is no evidence of delay or fault by the Environmental Health department, as at this point the EHO had decided there was no statutory nuisance but referred the matter to the housing department due to the improvements needed to the sound insulation.
29. There was fault by the Council, as there was some delay by the Council’s Environmental Health Department in responding to Mr X noise complaints between December 2015 and August 2017. Mr X has already been awarded financial compensation from the Council after his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman for this period so I do not propose to suggest a further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council, as there was some delay by the Environmental Health Department which caused injustice to Mr B. I am satisfied the Council has taken action to remedy that injustice by a payment made after Mr X complained to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

31. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s management of its housing. This includes the delay in the installation of the sound insulation/flooring which is his main complaint. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman