Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to her reports about noise from one neighbour and a rat infestation relating to another neighbour. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled a noise complaint and its decision not to take formal action against her neighbour. She also complained about the Council’s response to reports of rat infestation relating to another neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 considered:
• the information Mrs X sent me;
• the Council’s replies to my enquiries; and
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. Councils must investigate complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance. The council must decide whether the nuisance substantially interferes with the person’s enjoyment of their property or if it is likely to injure their health. When deciding this, the council should consider whether and how an ordinary person would be affected by the noise. If the council decides the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance it must act to stop the nuisance. Its powers are found in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
8. Private individuals do not have to rely on councils to protect them from nuisance; if they are confident they have enough evidence they can take their own legal action through the magistrates’ court to stop a nuisance.

What happened

Noise nuisance

9. Mrs X complained about noise from her neighbours in May 2019. The Council asked her to complete and return diary sheets, which she did. After reviewing the diary sheets, it decided to install noise monitoring equipment in her home. Unfortunately, its officers went to the wrong house with the equipment and found no-one at home. When reporting the officers had not turned up, Mr X said delivery drivers often made the same mistake. The officers called at the correct property later in the day to set up the equipment and explain how it should be used.
10. After reviewing the recordings, the environmental health officer was concerned the equipment had been moved. This was because of certain statements that were recorded and birdsong and traffic at a level that suggested it was recorded outside. The officer considered this would make it difficult to pursue enforcement action because the integrity of the recordings may be questioned in court.
11. Mrs X insisted the equipment had not been moved. She said windows had been open due to the heat and doors were opened at times to allow children to come and go.
12. In response to my enquiries the Council explained if it took court action it would need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Its concerns, taken together, raised doubt about the integrity of the recordings.
13. When the officer collected the equipment Mrs X also mentioned the neighbours had autistic children. The Council made enquiries to confirm this and considered how this affected its assessment.
14. In response to my enquiries the Council explained it would be more difficult for the parents to moderate the children’s behaviour and therefore the behaviour itself was not unreasonable. Therefore, it concluded the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance. The Council said if it had taken formal action the neighbour could have argued they had a reasonable excuse based on their children’s disabilities, which could amount to a defence.
15. The Council also explained that it was difficult to discuss its position openly with Mrs X when she initially told it about the children’s disabilities because the Council did not want to disclose information about the family inappropriately.
16. The officer made a referral to the children’s team for support for the family on the basis this was a more appropriate response to the situation.
17. Mrs X asked the Council to take into account her husband’s poor health. The Council explained this was not a relevant factor to consider when deciding whether the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance.

Rat infestation

18. Mrs X reported rubbish in another neighbour’s garden that was attracting rats in February 2019. Officer 1 wrote to the neighbour asking them to arrange for the rubbish to be removed and the neighbour did so about two weeks later.
19. Mrs X made a further report about rubbish in the garden in March 2019. The officer made some enquiries and established the rubbish consisted of furniture and a washing machine. Officer 1 explained the Council could not take action about those items but referred the case to Officer 2 to investigate the rat infestation.
20. Officer 2 had some difficulty in contacting the neighbour and gaining access to the garden in question. He had to contact the managing agent to gain access in early May 2019. He found no evidence of rat infestation. There was a small hole in some decking so he installed a bait station. He updated Mrs X. Officer 2 made a further visit around two weeks later but there was no uptake of bait so he concluded there was no infestation and collected the bait station.

My findings

Noise nuisance

21. The Council took the steps we would expect to establish whether there was a statutory noise nuisance. It asked Mrs X to complete diary sheets, installed noise monitoring equipment and analysed the recordings.
22. There is no record the Council was aware the children were autistic until the monitoring equipment was removed. This was not noted on the diary sheets
    Mrs X completed, which I have seen.
23. The Council explained how it considered the children’s disabilities and decided the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance. There is no evidence of fault in the way it considered this. I cannot comment on a decision made without fault.
24. If the Council had decided to take formal action the neighbour may have had a valid defence and could have challenged the integrity of the noise recordings. It did make a referral to children’s services for support for the family which was appropriate in the circumstances.

Rat infestation

25. The Council wrote to the neighbour asking them to arrange for the rubbish to be removed within two weeks. When a further report was made Officer 1 explained the Council could not take action about the remaining items but did refer the concerns about rats to Officer 2. Officer 2 made appropriate enquiries and concluded there was no evidence of rat infestation. There is no evidence of fault in the way the officers handled Mrs X’s concerns about the rubbish or rat infestation.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman