Summary: Miss B complained that the Council failed to investigate properly and adequately address problems she reported of noise from slamming doors in the neighbouring house. There was fault by the Council in its handling of Miss B’s complaints and a lack of clarity about the action it was taking but that has not affected the decisions it made about the noise from the doors. The remedy the Council has already offered is sufficient.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council has failed to investigate properly and adequately address problems she has reported of noise from slamming doors in the neighbouring house. She says that as a result she has suffered excessive noise which she has found stressful and which has affected her health.

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 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)
3. 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)
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. I considered the complaint and spoke to Miss B. I asked the Council for its comments on the complaint and additional information. I sent a copy of a draft of this statement to Miss B and the Council and invited their comments

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss B lives in an end terraced house. The adjoining house is owned by the Council. In late 2015 the Council did some works to the kitchen cabinets and to the kitchen door including fitting a door closer.
7. Miss B complained to the Council about noise from the kitchen door slamming shut repeatedly through the day and night in early 2016. Over 2016 through to 2018 there were visits by Council officers to Miss B and her neighbours. The Council arranged for some work to adjust the door closer and installed noise monitoring equipment in Miss B’s home. The Council’s position is that the noise does not amount to a statutory noise nuisance and there are no grounds to do any further works to the door closer or the kitchen cabinet doors.
8. Miss B complained about the Council’s response. The Council accepted it had not been clear with Miss B about its position and had given conflicting information. It offered Miss B £250 in recognition of the faults.

Analysis

The door closer

9. Miss B considers it is unnecessary to have a door closer on the door and that it could simply be removed which would resolve the problems she experiences. The Council has commented it is fitting closers to all fire doors as an extra safety precaution against fire spreading. It considered removing the closer in 2018, but, after discussions with officers managing fire safety, and taking account of the results of the noise monitoring, a decision was taken to leave it in place.
10. There is no legal requirement for a closer to be fitted but this is the Council’s property and it is for it to decide whether it should fit such a device. Its general approach is to do so. It has considered whether it should make an exception and remove it in this case but has decided not to do so. There is no fault in how the Council has considered this.

Statutory noise nuisance

11. It is for the Council’s officers to decide whether there is a statutory noise nuisance. The level of noise, its length, timing and location may be taken into consideration in deciding whether there is a statutory nuisance.
12. Officers have witnessed the noise from the doors and noise monitoring equipment was installed in Miss B’s home. Officers analysed the recordings made and decided they did not show noise that would amount to a statutory nuisance.
13. There is no fault in the Council’s assessment of whether there is a statutory nuisance.

Communication with Miss B

14. The Council’s communication with Miss B has not been clear. Over the end of 2017 it is not clear what the Council’s intentions were and it was not clear what action it was intending to take. The monitoring equipment was installed early in 2018 and the Council wrote to Miss B in early May saying it would not take any further action. When Miss B complained there was delay by the Council in responding. It has said this was due to the service departments not providing the necessary information which the Council has taken up with senior management.
15. The Council recognised it had not handled the matter well and offered Miss B £250 in recognition of that. I consider that is reasonable remedy for those failings.

Way forward

16. The Council has offered mediation between Miss B and her neighbours. In commenting on a draft of this statement Miss B says she has always been open to mediation and has contacted the Council to arrange this.
17. In responding to the complaint the Council has said it will arrange to fit a new closer and new foam pads to the kitchen cabinet doors. I commend the Council for making this offer.
18. I recognise Miss B remains concerned about the noise from the doors but there is no fault in how the Council has considered the key issues of the noise. I do not, therefore, consider there is any further action it should now take.

Agreed action

19. If Miss B decides to accept it the Council should make the already offered payment of £250.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There was fault by the Council in its handling of Miss B’s complaints and a lack of clarity about the action it was taking but that has not affected the decisions it made about the noise from the doors. The remedy the Council has already offered is sufficient.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman