Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly respond to noise complaints. We found that the Council took reasonable steps to investigate noise complaints. However, there was some fault in the way it responded to a Community Trigger review request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly deal with reports he made about noise by his neighbour.
2. He also complains the Council failed to respond to a request for a Community Trigger Review of the situation. He says that the noise has caused stress and affected his mental health.

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 an organisation’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 an organisation’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 spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Environmental Health Act 1990

7. The Environmental Protection Act places a duty on Councils to ‘take such steps as are reasonably practicable’ to investigate any complaint of noise nuisance. If a Council is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, it must serve an Abatement Notice on the person responsible for the nuisance, or on the owner or occupier.
8. However, the law does not define what constitutes a “statutory nuisance”. The law relies on the judgement of environmental health officers to determine this.

Community Trigger Legislation

9. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include councils, the police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
10. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
11. The Council’s website sets out its threshold for carrying out a Community Trigger review. It states “the applicant must have reported the ASB problem at least three times before applying under the Trigger. At least one of the reports must have been made within the six months prior to applying for the case review…Each report must have been made no later than one month after the incident being reported.”

The Council’s Procedures

12. When the Council receives a complaint it sends a standard letter to the complainant explaining the process. The letter advises the complainant to keep a diary of events and to return these once they have been completed. It also asks complainants to call the Noise Line when the noise is taking place.
13. Officers should phone the complainant within five working days of a case being allocated to them. The Council states that to advance the case further, officers must witness the noise being reported and deem it to be a statutory nuisance. The Council told us if the noise is not witnessed, the case may be closed.

Changes to Procedures due to the COVID-19 pandemic

14. The Council stated during the first lockdown, all visits were suspended and there was a telephone only service to give advice to residents.
15. In late 2021 the Council had adapted the service and introduced a Noise App that people could use on their mobile phones. Officers were making noise assessments from the street outside people’s homes. The Council stated that residents could report noise online or via the noise telephone line at any time.

What happened

16. Mr X reported noise by his neighbour on 21 July 2021. The Council sent Mr X a letter explaining how to go about reporting further noise. It encouraged Mr X to use the Noise Line whenever he experienced noise. This was so that officers could try to visit when the noise was occurring. It also sent diary sheets for Mr X to complete for a minimum of two weeks to help build up a picture of how often and what type of noise Mr X was experiencing. It provided some details about likely Statutory Nuisances and what to expect from the Council.
17. Mr X made a further online report 27 July 2021.
18. On 11 August an officer contacted Mr X. He noted things had improved at that time. Mr X says he sent diary sheets to this officer subsequently but they were not responded to.
19. On 15 August Mr X called the Noise Line. They logged his call. Mr X says they did not respond further. Mr X says an officer on the Noise Line told him they would not send some if only one person was reporting. He challenged this as he understood other neighbours also reported an issue on the same night. The Council confirmed it did receive another report in August. However, when an officer called Mr X back later the noise had stopped. Officers did not visit as they would not be able to witness the noise.
20. On 26 and 27 September, and 12 and 13 October Mr X made further noise reports via an online form.
21. In October Mr X also complained. He stated he had made reports on numerous occasions but only got a response the first time. He stated the noise from his neighbour was loud. It came from his Television and it occurred most days. Mr X noted other neighbours were also complaining and he considered the Council should act. Mr X stated he preferred to use the online form rather than call the Noise Line.
22. The Council’s responses stated that Mr X had only called the Noise Line once after his initial report. Although it noted online reports he had made, it explained these could not be actioned immediately in the way the Noise Line could. The Council explained it had no grounds to take action at that stage. The Council explained this was a noise issue rather than Anti-Social Behaviour, so it was being considered under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
23. Mr X made further online reports on 24 and 27 October.
24. Mr X called the Council on 6, 14, 15 and 23 November. On each occasion the noise had either stopped or reduced at the time of his call. On one occasion Mr X agreed to call back if it increased again. A case officer called Mr X back on 25 November to discuss the Noise App’ that Mr X could use.
25. On 13 November 2021 Mr X made a request for a review of the case quoting the Community Trigger. The Council responded to the request on 31 January 2022. The Council explained to us that the delay was caused by several officers being away from work having contracted COVID.
26. The Council’s response letter stated Mr X’s reports did not meet the threshold for the Community Trigger review. The letter did not explain why. However, the Council noted an environmental health officer was investigating, and Mr X had been provided with a Noise App’ that he could use to record the noise.
27. The Council told us that the incidents Mr X reported were noise complaints (as opposed to issues of ASB). It noted the noise problem was being addressed under the Environmental Protection Act. This was why the Community Trigger review was not accepted.
28. The Council sent us a summary of calls and contacts the Council has with Mr X between December 2021 and April 2022. This noted six telephone contacts between Mr X and the case officer. On the majority of these he asked for this to be logged.
29. On 8 April 2022, Mr X asked the officer to visit. An officer visited that night promptly but the noise had stopped, so a nuisance was not witnessed. The Council noted there had been mediation between Mr X and his neighbour but after a period of improvement the noise issue had continued.
30. The Council also sent us analysis of recordings made by Mr X on the Noise App’ between November 2021 and April 2022. These noted examples of loud music and bass at times, and at other times audible noise which was less prominent.
31. The Council’s records show that after analysing a number of recordings Mr X made via a noise app between January and April 2022, officers decided the loud amplified music and bass amounted to a statutory nuisance. It issued an abatement notice to Mr X’s neighbour as a result.

Was there fault by the Council

32. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make decisions. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether its decisions were right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with them.
33. I have considered the steps the Council took regarding Mr X’s noise complaints. I found that the Council issued guidance to Mr X about how to follow up his complaint in the form of diary sheets and calls to the Noise Line. It sent letters to Mr X’s neighbour. I note Mr X was dissatisfied with the responses to online complaints, however the Council explained this contact method could not be responded to urgently. This is why it directed people to make reports by phone and to complete diary sheets.
34. When Mr X did made calls to the Noise Line, he was told at times that officers could not visit due to COVID. On other occasions the noise had often reduced, which meant officers would be unable to witness noise if they visited. When an officer visited the noise had stopped and was not such that it was a nuisance. Although I note that visits were likely to be limited by COVID during the early period of Mr X’s complaint, I do not consider this amounts to fault by the Council. I appreciate this was frustrating for Mr X nevertheless.
35. When Mr X began using the Noise App’ there is evidence the Council considered the recordings made and it did ultimately take formal action, by issuing a noise abatement notice. While I understand it was frustrating for Mr X that the noise continued while he made reports, I found the Council did take reasonable actions to investigate his noise reports overall.
36. There was delay in the Council responding to Mr X’s request for a Community Trigger review. This was fault. In addition, the Council’s letter to Mr X did not explain the reasons why his request did not meet the threshold. The threshold on the Council’s website relates to the number of ASB reports that need to be made in a given period to qualify for a review. Mr X made numerous noise reports, so he was unclear about this decision. The Council explained to us it did not consider Mr X’s reports to be ASB, but rather noise reports which were being dealt with under the relevant legislation. This could have been made clearer. The lack of explanation was also fault. However, as the Council was considering Mr X’s noise reports while the Community Trigger review was being dealt with, I do not consider this had a significant impact on Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. The Council should apologise to Mr X for the failure to resolve his Community Trigger request in a reasonable timescale and for the failure to properly explain its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

38. There was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman