Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate noise nuisance reports and his complaints about this causing frustration and distress. While the Council did not send further diary sheets for Mr X to complete, it clearly explained how he should use its noise reporting line and Mr X did not do this regularly. The Council did not witness the noise and so was unable to take formal action. Delays in dealing with Mr X’s complaints are not due to fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate noise nuisance reports and his complaints about this.
2. Mr X says the nuisance is ongoing and the Council’s failure to act has caused frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X contacted the Council in September 2017 about noise from a neighbouring property. He reported noise from five screaming children, a lawn being mowed at 9pm and moving wheelies bins after midnight. The Council wrote to the neighbour advising a report has been made and asking them to consider how neighbours might be affected.
7. The Council also wrote to Mr X. It provided details of the opening hours for its reactive service and explained that it was in a better position to help residents if the noise is witnessed by an officer. It also said Mr X could keep a record of the noise.
8. Mr X contacted the Council again in December 2017. He provided diary sheets of the noise experienced between May and September 2017. Mr X told the Council he intended to take action privately against his neighbour under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
9. Mr X emailed the Council on 14 January chasing a response to his previous correspondence. The Council emailed Mr X on 15 January 2018. It apologised for the delay in sending the response. The Council said it previously advised that a diary sheet could be a useful addition to using its noise line service. It said the diary sheets showed a lot of the reported noise had occurred within its response hours. It advised Mr X to call the noise line number whenever he was experiencing on-going unreasonable noise. It said officers would then visit his home in order to collect evidence of the problem. The Council provided the phone number and opening hours.
10. The email also provided details of noise that it could not deal with as a statutory nuisance. It said it would write to the neighbour about the bin and lawnmower noise and ask the neighbour to amend their behaviour. It said this type of noise is unlikely to be considered a statutory nuisance. It said it would focus the investigation on the noise Mr X was experiencing as a result of the children screaming.
11. In March 2018, Mr X completed a web reporting form. This form is used for reporting non-urgent noise or noise occurring outside operational hours. Mr X completed the form during operational hours and would have seen information suggesting he call the noise line. Mr X did not phone the noise line.
12. On Sunday 22 April 2018 Mr X reported noise using the noise line. He called during the afternoon when the service was not operational. The service only operations between 8 pm and 1 am on Sundays. Officers called Mr X when they began work that evening but Mr X did not answer.
13. On 22 June 2018 officers visited Mr X’s property at 10 pm after he called the noise line. They remained at his property for approximately 25 minutes but did not witness a statutory nuisance.
14. Mr X made a formal complaint about the Council’s lack of action. It responded on 10 December 2018. Mr X complained the Council had failed to provide diary sheets and so denied him the opportunity to provide further evidence. The Council said it had asked Mr X to use the noise callout service as it was necessary to witness the problem. It said while diary sheets are a useful investigative tool, they are not a substitute for evidence witnessed by officers. It had diary sheets completed previously by Mr X and said that if this was a reflection of the problems experienced, then further sheets were not necessary. It said that if the current issues were different then he should contact his case officer immediately.
15. The Council also responded to Mr X’s complaint about the failure to communicate by his preferred method which was post. It said Mr X’s previous contact had been by phone and email and so it was appropriate the Council respond by email. It said it would now contact him by post.
16. The Council did accept it had failed to communicate with Mr X in a suitable and timely manner particularly in response to a service complaint. It said it had not met its own service standards. It apologised to Mr X and said that managers would be taking action to ensure officers knew and met its service standards in the future.
17. The Council said it intended to carry out a review of Mr X’s noise complaint to decide the most effective way to bring the case to a resolution. It said it would aske the noise team manager and case officer to meet with Mr X to clarify the current noise issues and raise any concerns. It said the officers would make contact within 10 working days.
18. On 13 December the case officer visited Mr X’s property to deliver a letter inviting him to meet and discuss the case. Mr X did speak to the officer but said it was not a convenient time and he would make contact after the festive period. Mr X says he contacted the Council on 24 June to request a meeting.
19. Mr X wrote to the Council making a stage two complaint. The Council responded on 16 August 2019. The response notes that Mr X continues to complain about noise from five children playing outside the property. The Council explains that it is unlikely such noise could be considered a statutory nuisance.
20. It also responds again to the same matters as its letter of 10 December 2018 and does not uphold Mr X’s complaint.

Analysis

21. Mr X complains the Council failed to investigate his reports of noise nuisance or respond properly to his complaints about this. Having carefully considered the Council’s actions in response to his noise reports, I am not persuaded there is fault in this case.
22. Mr X first contacted the Council in September 2017. The Council gave him advice about how to report noise using its noise reporting line and explained what types of noise may not be considered a statutory nuisance. Mr X did not make any reports on the noise line and said the noise had reduced because of the winter months. In December, Mr X sent diary sheets for the period May to September 2017. The sheets indicated the noise was from children screaming, moving of wheelie bins and mowing the lawn.
23. The Council told Mr X again that he should report noise when it was happening so they could come out and witness it. The diary sheets showed noise was occurring during its operational hours and would last for periods long enough to enable officers to attend and witness the noise. While Mr X made a couple of calls to the noise reporting line, officers only visited once. They did not witness a noise at that time.
24. Mr X did not continue to make regular complaints about the noise in 2018 and so this limited the action the Council was able to take. The Council had clearly explained its processes and provided contact details and hours of operation to Mr X. I cannot criticise the Council for not taking action if Mr X did not regularly report the noise after December 2017.
25. Mr X says the Council did not provide him with diary sheets and so he was prevented from reporting the noise. I appreciate that Mr X may have wanted to complete diary sheets but the Council has explained that further diary sheets would not have necessarily changed the situation. As the main noise being complained of was of children screaming, the Council really needed to witness it. It had explained that noise from children playing would not normally be a statutory nuisance. It would need to witness the noise in order to use its professional judgement to decide if the screaming could be considered a statutory nuisance. I am not persuaded it was fault by the Council to ask Mr X to use the noise reporting line rather than provide further diary sheets. I do not consider Mr X was disadvantaged because the Council did not send further diary sheets.
26. Mr X also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaints. The Council provided a stage one response in December 2018 and then the stage two response in August 2019. On the face of it this is a long time for a complaints process. However, the Council did offer to meet with Mr X to try to resolve his issues and visited him in December 2018 to arrange this. Mr X said it was not convenient and it was left with Mr X to make contact in early 2019. Mr X did not make contact to arrange a meeting until June. When Mr X did contact the Council again in July 2019 the Council then provided the stage two response.
27. While there has been delay in dealing with Mr X’s complaints, I am not persuaded this is because of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman