Summary: Mrs D says the Council failed to properly investigate her reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council failed to properly investigate noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) caused by a neighbour from 2017 onwards.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have looked at events from February 2019 onwards. I explain below why I cannot look at earlier incidents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. 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

6. I have spoken to Mrs D and considered the information she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and examined its response and evidence.
7. I have seen logs and emails relating to Mrs D’s neighbour. None of those can be disclosed as that would be a breach of third party data.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

9. Mrs D complained to the Council in 2017 about noise and ASB caused by her neighbour. The Council investigated, which include installation of noise monitoring equipment and site visits and found no evidence to warrant enforcement action. The case was closed in 2018 and the Council explained its decision to Mrs D.

Events I have investigated

10. In March 2019 Mrs D emailed a complaint about the Council’s actions to her MP. This was forwarded to a Councillor, the Council replied in March that it had investigated in 2018 and not found evidence of a statutory noise nuisance or ASB. It could only investigate further if there were new issues or evidence. It also wrote to Mrs D in May 2019 reiterating its position. It had a duty to consider counter allegations and had done so carefully. It had also previously offered mediation to both parties. As there were no new types of nuisance being reported it could not investigate further.
11. On 26 November Mrs D asked the Council to review its decision not to reopen her case. The Council acknowledged the complaint on 4 December. It sent its response on 12 February 2020 after apologising for the delay. It told Mrs D that its policy required a review request be lodged within six weeks of the Council’s response to a complaint. As this timescale had been exceeded the Council could not review the complaint.
12. Also, in February and throughout the following months Mrs D reported incidents to the ASB Officer. These included washing machine noise and banging. From the start of 2020 onwards, the Council started to consider the neighbour under its multi-agency approach. This meant a variety of people were liaised with including the landlord and Police. Regular meetings were held, and the case considered including the reports made by Mrs D. The Council concluded it would be best to relocate the neighbour. A move could not be arranged due to covid-19 restrictions through the spring and summer. The neighbour was relocated in October.

What should have happened

13. The Council investigates reports of alleged noise nuisance and ASB. Officers can only take enforcement action if they are able to evidence a statutory noise nuisance or behaviour they consider to be ASB. If repeat complaints are made about a closed case the Council should consider whether there are new types of incidents and what evidence is provided. The Council can decide to not investigate further and should notify the complainant.
14. Where there are allegations and counter allegations relating to a vulnerable person the Council can consider matters under a multi-agency approach which involves regular meetings liaising with the landlord, Council Officers and other relevant bodies. Those meetings are confidential, and the outcomes are not shared with third parties such as a complainant.
15. The Council will consider reviewing its decision on a complaint. The review request must be lodged within six weeks of the final decision from the Council. If a request is made after the six week period there is no duty on the Council to review a case.

Was there fault by the Council

16. Mrs D feels the Council should have investigated her case further in 2019. I see no evidence of fault by the Council. It had already explained to Mrs D in 2018 that its investigation (which included noise monitoring and site visits) had not found evidence of ASB or a statutory noise nuisance. The Council had a right to decide it would not reinvestigate or look at the same types of complaint further. It acted in line with its policies and procedures. In addition, I cannot see Mrs D actually lodged any significant new incidents with the Council until the end of 2019 and into 2020. Once she resumed contact with the Council the case was referred to a multi-agency group to consider what actions could be taken to bring matters to a resolution for both parties. I cannot set out the details of what happened with the multi-agency group as that data is confidential, however I am satisfied the Council liaised with the landlord and other relevant bodies to move the case forward. I have not seen any evidence of procedural fault. There was a delay moving the neighbour but that was due to covid-19 and so out of the Council’s control.
17. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse a review of Mrs D’s complaint in 2019. It correctly set out its policy to Mrs D, her request was received outside the allowed period.
18. I appreciate Mrs D disagrees with the Council’s actions and decisions. However, the Ombudsman will not question the validity of such decisions in the absence of fault: that applies to this case.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

20. The Ombudsman expects a complaint to be made to him within 12 months. In this case we are unable to consider events dating back to 2017.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman