Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to properly investigate her complaints of noise nuisance. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Miss X’s complaints of noise nuisance.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council failed to properly investigate her complaints of noise nuisance from her neighbours. As a result, the neighbours continue to cause noise nuisance and Miss X has to sleep away from her flat.
2. Miss X has also complained the Council has failed to evict the tenants who she considers are causing the noise and are illegally occupying the property despite undertaking to do so.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated complaint 1. I have not investigated complaint 2 for the reasons set out at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Miss X;
• Discussed the issues with Miss X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Miss X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Noise nuisance

7. Councils have a duty to investigate complaints about matters which could be a nuisance covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This includes complaints about noise. The presence of noise does not mean it is a statutory nuisance. The Council must decide if the noise substantially interferes with the complainant’s use of their property or if it is likely to injure their health. If the Council considers the nuisance amounts to a statutory nuisance it must serve an abatement notice. In deciding if a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, the Council should take account of factors such as the frequency, duration and characteristics of the noise.
8. An environmental health officer will generally need to witness the nuisance. He or she will come to an independent judgement on whether the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance.

What happened

9. From autumn 2019 Miss X contacted the Council’s team on multiple occasions to report neighbours playing loud music in the early hours of the morning which was preventing her from sleeping. Miss X made her complaints at different times of the day and night when she could hear the noise. The Council’s records show its noise team visited Miss X’s property on seven occasions over a period of 18 months but did not witness the noise. The Council’s records note that during some visits Miss X could hear the noise, but officers could not.
10. A senior officer visited Miss X in Spring 2020. The officer noted the sound of a radio in a garden close to Miss X’s property but considered the noise was not excessive.
11. Miss X reported that her neighbour, Mr Y, had also been disturbed by loud music and a washing machine being used late at night. On two occasions senior officers visited Miss X and spoke to Mr Y by telephone during the visit. Mr Y reported that he had heard music and shouting from the property identified by Miss X as causing the noise nuisance.
12. The Council’s housing management team carried out survey of the address where Miss X considered the noise was coming from. No residents reported concerns about loud music or other noise.
13. Miss X made a complaint about how the Council had investigated her complaints of noise nuisance and for failing to take action to prevent the noise. The Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint but it agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in Miss X’s property.
14. The Council installed the noise monitoring equipment for one week in Miss X’s property in autumn 2020. The Council’s analysis of the recordings show there was no noise which could amount to a statutory nuisance. The analysis notes one instance of loud music for approximately 10 minutes, but the Council considers this originated from Miss X’s property.
15. In early 2021 the Council notified Miss X that the recordings did not provide evidence of a nuisance from her neighbours. In a further email the Council acknowledged Miss X would hear noise from the flats around her but this was domestic noise which did not amount to an actionable nuisance.
16. The Council also raised its concerns about the recording of music which it considered to come from Miss X’s property. The Council said it would not install noise monitoring equipment again unless Miss X could provide an explanation for the recording. Miss X provided an explanation, but this did not persuade the Council that the noise was not from her property. The Council advised Miss X that it would withdraw the service from her. A senior officer advised officers not to respond to further complaints of noise from Miss X.
17. Miss X says she continues to suffer from noise nuisance and has to sleep away from her property.

Analysis

18. It is not our role to come to a view on whether the noise heard by Miss X amounts to a statutory nuisance. Our role is to examine how the Council investigated Miss X’s complaints.
19. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Miss X’s complaints of noise from her neighbours. The Council has visited Miss X on several occasions to witness the noise, spoken to Mr Y about his experience of the noise, installed noise monitoring equipment and analysed the recordings. The Council has also considered the results of the block survey. So, I am satisfied, the Council has taken sufficient action to investigate Miss X’s complaints of noise nuisance and it was in a position to determine if there was noise which could amount to statutory nuisance.
20. The Council has decided it will not investigate Miss X’s complaints of noise nuisance any further. Councils have limited resources. So, I do not consider the Council to be at fault in ending its investigation into Miss X’s complaint when it is unlikely that further investigation will establish a statutory nuisance. But the Council has a duty to investigate complaints of noise nuisance so it cannot completely withdraw the service from Miss X. The Council should maintain an open mind and consider any further complaints of noise nuisance from Miss X to determine if there are any significant changes which would warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Miss X’s complaints of noise nuisance. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

22. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint that the Council has failed to evict the tenants who she considers are causing noise nuisance. This is because the Council’s decisions about whether to evict a tenant are taken in its role as a social landlord. We do not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the Council in its role as a social landlord.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman