Summary: Mr X has complained about how the Council investigated his reports of excessive noise from the property below his. He also says the Council did not deal with his complaint in line with its policy. There is no fault with how the Council investigated concerns about a possible statutory nuisance. There is some fault with how it dealt with Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with his reports of excessive noise and anti-social behaviour from his former neighbour. Mr X says the Council failed to properly investigate his concerns and he eventually had to move because of the issues he was having. Mr X also says the Council did not respond to his complaint in line with its policy.
2. Mr X has also complained about how the Housing Association dealt with the matter.

What I have investigated

3. I have considered Mr X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with his complaints about excessive noise. The final part of this statement will explain my reasons for not looking into the rest of Mr X’s concerns.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 have considered information from Mr X and the Council, including the Council’s response to my enquires.
8. A copy of this decision was sent to Mr X and the Council in draft. I have considered the comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

9. In April 2016, a new tenant (Mr Y) moved into the property below Mr X’s. Mr X and Mr Y are both Housing Association tenants. After Mr Y moved into the building, Mr X started to experience problems with excessive noise and anti-social behaviour. Mr X says the majority of the noise occurred at night and caused him significant distress. In August 2016, Mr X contacted the Housing Association to complain about Mr Y. Mr X was advised to keep a record of the noise disturbances and anti-social behaviour. The Housing Association also suggested he contact the Council. Mr X says he contracted the Council in November 2016, but it closed his complaint without looking into his concerns.
10. In April 2017, Mr X contacted the Council as the problems with his neighbour continued. He said he was unable to sleep, and the issues were having a significant impact on his health. The Council sent Mr X diary log sheets so he could record the details of the noises he was experiencing. The Council also wrote to Mr Y advising him that it may consider taking legal action if the noise problems continued.
11. Mr X sent the completed diary logs to the Council along with the records he had been keeping for the Housing Association. In June 2017, the Council wrote to Mr X and said its environmental health officers had considered his concerns but had decided not to take any further action as the noises Mr X reported did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
12. Mr X did not agree and complained to the Council. The Council responded and said again that it did not consider there to be evidence of a statutory nuisance. However, it sent Mr X details for a ‘noise app’ that he could download and use on his mobile phone to record the noises. Mr X was unable to install the app on his phone and therefore the Council said he could instead complete further diary logs. Mr X returned the completed diary logs in July 2017. He also sent the Council copies of the audio recordings he had taken himself.
13. In August 2017, an officer from the Council visited Mr X along with an officer from the Housing Association. The Council officer again said that she did not consider that the noises Mr X had reported amounted to a statutory nuisance and instead suggested mediation to resolve the issues.
14. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with his noise complaints and argues that the issues he has experienced do amount to a statutory nuisance. He believes the Council has not properly investigated his concerns and says that Mr Y’s behaviour has caused him significant distress.
15. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 says that councils must take reasonable steps to investigate complaints about possible noise nuisance. The council will usually consider the level of noise, when and where it occurs and how long it lasts. A noise will amount to a statutory nuisance if it unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a person’s home. If the council decides that a noise is causing, or is likely to cause, a nuisance it must serve an abatement notice. This requires the person responsible to either stop or restrict the noise and if they do not comply, they can be prosecuted or fined.
16. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s noise complaints before deciding there was not enough evidence to show a statutory nuisance was occurring. It considered the diary logs and noise recordings Mr X provided. It also visited Mr X’s home before deciding it did not have enough evidence to take further action. As the Council properly considered these issues, I cannot say there is any fault. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the environmental health officers were entitled to use their professional judgment before deciding there was not enough evidence that a statutory nuisance existed. The ombudsman cannot question the Council’s professional judgement unless it was tainted by fault.
17. Mr X has also complained about how the Council has dealt with his complaint and says it did not deal with his concerns in line with its complaint policy. The Council’s complaint process has two stages. At the first stage, the complaint will be reviewed by the relevant head of service and a response provided. If the complainant remains unhappy, they can ask for a stage two review. At the second stage the matter will be considered by a member of the Council’s corporate leadership team. The Council’s policy says it will send the complainant an acknowledgement letter if a response cannot be sent within 5 working days and a full response will be given within 15 working days.
18. Mr X complained to the Council on 6 June 2017. He received a response on 27 June. The response said that if Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s reply, he could escalate his complaint and a further response would be sent within 15 working days. Mr X emailed the Council the next day to complain about its response. However, the Council did not escalate his concerns to stage two of its complaint process until Mr X contacted the Ombudsman in 2018. This delay is fault. I understand that Mr X was still in correspondence with the Council regarding the noise from his neighbour in July 2017, but it is clear that he still expected a stage two response in June 2017. However, the Council has now apologised which is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Final decision

19. There is no fault with how the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns about a possible statutory nuisance. There is fault with how it dealt with Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

20. Mr X has complained about the actions of the Housing Association. He also says the Council has not acted in line with its duties under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. However, I have not considered these matters as part of this complaint. Mr X and Mr Y were Housing Association tenants and complaints about anti-social behaviour should be raised with the social landlord (the Housing Association). We cannot investigate complaints related to a social landlord as these matters will fall within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.
21. Mr X says he first contacted the Council to complain about Mr Y in November 2016, but it refused to investigate his concerns. The Council disputes this and says it has no record of any contact from Mr X before 2017. I have not investigated this matter as the issue occurred more than 12 months before Mr X complained to the Ombudsman and is therefore late. I cannot see a good reason to exercise discretion in this regard as it is unlikely I could reach a conclusion on the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman