Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his complaint about noise properly. He said it gave him contradictory information. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his complaint about noise properly. He said it gave him contradictory information. He said the noise caused by his upstairs neighbour has caused him stress and anxiety.
2. Mr X also complained the Council delayed in dealing with his complaint and it only acted after he sent emails chasing a response.

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. I read the complaint Mr X sent to the Ombudsman.
6. I read the Council’s case records on Mr X’s complaint and listened to his recordings of the noise.
7. I read the Council’s Noise Nuisance Procedure and referred to relevant legislation.
8. Mr X and the Council both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Councils must investigate noise complaints that may be a statutory nuisance under the Environment Protection Act 1990. For noise to count as statutory nuisance, it must do one of the following:
• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; or
• Injure health or be likely to injure health.

The Council’s procedure

10. The Council asks complainants to complete a 14-day noise diary detailing the time and type of noise nuisance. After the complainant has sent the Council the noise diary, it assesses whether the noise may be a nuisance. In cases where it decides it may be, the Council sends the alleged perpetrator a warning letter, asking them to call the Council within two weeks to discuss the complaint. It also sends a letter to the complainant explaining what it has done and asking them to contact the Council again in two weeks if the problems continue.
11. If, after a fortnight the complainant contacts the Council to say the noise is still a problem, the Council decides the best way to gather evidence. That may include:
• Using the Noise App;
• Installing recording equipment; or
• Planned visits when the noise is most likely to occur.
12. The Council’s procedure requires the investigating officer to review the recordings from the Noise App ‘as appropriate’ and to make a decision on the noise nuisance within four weeks. If, after that time, the investigating officer decides the noise is not a nuisance the Council shuts the case down.
13. The Council’s procedure says that it considers issues such as “reasonableness, loudness, duration, the time of day, how often the problem occurs and any particularly disturbing qualities” when assessing if noise is a statutory nuisance.
14. If the Council decides the noise is causing a statutory nuisance, it must issue an abatement notice requiring the person responsible for the noise to stop. If the perpetrator fails to do so, the Council can bring court proceedings for breaching the notice.

What happened

15. Mr X has lived in his flat since 2012. He said he has experienced noise nuisance since 2018, after a new neighbour moved into the flat above him.
16. In April 2019, Mr X sent the Council a noise diary he had kept for the previous fortnight. Mr X also alleged his neighbour was running a business from their flat and sent photographs of boxes being delivered to the flat.
17. The noise diary showed sporadic banging noises taking place most nights from 10pm onwards. Mr X described the noises as sounding like an object being thrown on the ground.
18. The Council received Mr X’s noise diary and opened an investigation into his complaint on 15 April 2019. It sent Mr X a letter and a letter to the alleged perpetrator.
19. Within a fortnight of the Council sending its letter, Mr X sent the Council two further emails. In the second email he complained the noise was increasing. The Council asked Mr X to download the Noise App to record the noise.
20. Mr X asked the Council whether he should make the recordings at specific times, such as late at night. The Council told him there were no restrictions as to when the recordings could be made.
21. Between 28 April and 7 May 2019, Mr X used the Noise App and uploaded several recordings. On 29 April, the Council sent him an email saying it would review the recordings the following week. Mr X sent the Council two emails on 20 May and 29 May asking it if it had listened to the recordings submitted.
22. On 30 May 2019, the Council emailed Mr X. It said it had listened to the recordings but there was not enough evidence to proceed with the investigation. It said the banging he had recorded would need to be frequent and persistent for it to be considerred a statutory nuisance. The Council said in its professional opinion it was not. It said there was poor insulation in the block of flats he lived in and the noise Mr X was experiencing would need to be tolerated.
23. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and on 3 June 2019, complained about how the Council completed its investigation.
24. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 4 July 2019. It explained it had reviewed the recordings and upheld the initial investigating officer’s view that the noise did not constitute a statutory nuisance. It said, “If the noise was occurring on a regular basis late at night or in the early hours of the morning or was constant purposeful banging in recordings then the council would investigate the matter further.”
25. The Council offered Mr X the opportunity to use the Noise App for another two weeks and said it would arrange for another officer to assess the recordings provided. Mr X declined.
26. The next day, Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two. He said he wanted the Council to reconsider its decision to close its investigation into his noise complaint and said that he had been given inconsistent advice by the Council about the best time to make recordings. He also said the Council had not dealt with all his complaints at stage one. The Council did not send an acknowledgement, so Mr X sent an email asking for a response.
27. On 24 July 2019, the Council responded. It did not uphold his complaint. It explained that when assessing noise nuisance, the Council considers “the level and type of noise being created along with the time of day and the likely activity creating the noise”.
28. Mr X had also requested recording equipment instead of the Noise App. However, the Council explained there was not enough evidence of noise nuisance; therefore, the provision of recording equipment would not be an appropriate use of resources.
29. The Council said it had also considered Mr X’s allegation that his neighbour may be running a business from his flat, but there was not enough evidence to suggest the Council should pass that information to its Planning Enforcement Team for further investigation.
30. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

My findings

31. The Ombudsman cannot question the outcome of a Council’s decision that has not been affected by an administrative fault. Nor can we substitute our own opinion for the Council’s professional judgement.
32. The Council investigated Mr X’s report of noise nuisance by considering the diary he provided and listening to recordings made on the Noise App. The investigating officer used their professional judgment to decide there was no statutory nuisance. There was no fault in how the Council made that decision so I cannot question the outcome.
33. Mr X said the Council gave him inconsistent advice about when he should make the recordings. The Council told Mr X there were no restrictions on when he made the recordings. That advice was correct.
34. The Council assesses noise in terms of “reasonableness, loudness, duration, the time of day, how often the problem occurs and any particularly disturbing qualities”. The Council was not responsible for the timings of the recordings Mr X provided, nor was there any fault in the advice given. The Council was not at fault.
35. Following Mr X’s complaint, the Council told Mr X it would not provide sound recording equipment because there was not enough evidence of noise nuisance. The Council based that decision on the recordings provided. The Council was entitled to make that decision. The Council was not at fault.
36. The Council’s policy says it reviews the Noise App ‘as required’ but will review investigations every four weeks. However, it told Mr X it would review the evidence he provided the week after he submitted it. Although it failed to do that, that failure is not so significant to be considered fault.
37. According to its policy, the Council should have reviewed the case by 27 May 2019. It did not give Mr X a decision until 30 May 2019, after Mr X contacted it. There was a short delay in the Council reviewing the Noise App, however, that delay was not so significant it amounted to fault.
38. Mr X complained to the Council on 3 June 2019. The Council says it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days. It responded to Mr X on 4 July 2019. That was a delay of 8 working days. That delay was not so significant it amounted to fault
39. At stage two, the Council says it responds to complaints within 20 working day. Mr X escalated his complaint on 5 July 2019. The Council responded 13 working days later, on 24 July 2018. This was within its timescales and so the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

40. Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his complaint about noise properly. The Council was not at fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman