Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about potential delay in a noise nuisance issue. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and a court is better placed to consider Mr Y’s alleged injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council was too slow to respond to his complaints about a noise nuisance made by his neighbour.
2. Mr Y says the neighbour continued home improvement work on the wall shared by the properties and caused damage to Mr Y’s home. He also says he was distressed by the level of noise, which led him to seek counselling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mr Y and considered the information provided. Mr Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr Y’s neighbour was carrying out home improvements between June and September 2020. Mr Y contacted the Council to complain about the noise his neighbour was making during these works in July. The Council wrote to Mr Y’s neighbour six days later, explaining it had received a complaint about the noise. Mr Y says his neighbour ignored the Council’s letters and consequently he made a further complaint a further week later.
6. The Council sent a further letter to the neighbour at the end of July. After the problems continued, the Council offered to install noise recording equipment at Mr Y’s home to gather evidence of the problem in August. However, Mr Y refused this as he felt it was too late. The neighbour then completed the work on his property in September.
7. Mr Y complained to the Council in September about the time it took it to act on his report of a noise nuisance. The Council responded in October 2020 but did not identify any delay or fault. It said it had offered recording equipment and noted it had not received dairy sheets records from Mr Y detailing the problem. The correspondence also shows it considered the timing of the noise made by the works, which generally seemed to be during office hours, although Mr Y has told us it was also on occasions at the weekend.
8. Mr Y says his home, which shares a wall with his neighbour’s property, has been damaged by the work carried out. He also says he has been unable to enjoy his own home due to the noise and damage done to the wall, which caused him to seek counselling for distress. Mr Y has told us he plans to take his neighbour to court to claim for the damage to his property and has contacted his home insurer. Mr Y says he thinks the Council should have acted, either to provide sound recording equipment or serve an abatement order against his neighbour much faster.

Analysis

9. While Mr Y clearly feels strongly that the Council should have acted more forcibly and faster, it acted to follow its process as set out on its website, to warn the neighbour initially by letter and then if the disturbance continued to consider putting recording equipment in Mr Y’s home to gather evidence of the alleged nuisance.
10. Councils are not able to issue a noise abatement order or provide sound recording equipment without gathering initial evidence of the problem and allowing time for any letter written to someone making a noise, to be received. The Council’s complaint response shows it considered relevant factors such as the timing of the noise and the evidence available such as diary sheets, which although Mr Y says he sent, the Council says it did not receive. As it considered the problem properly, it is unlikely we would find fault in this complaint.
11. Mr Y also intends to take his neighbour to court about the disturbance and the damage to his property. The court can consider whether any damages should be paid to Mr Y and if so, at what level. As it can consider who is liable for the costs to the repairs to Mr Y’s property, the court is better placed than us to consider the impact of the neighbour’s home improvements and the noise caused. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in this complaint and a court is better placed to consider Mr Y’s alleged injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman