Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to investigate his reports about noise nuisance. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to investigate and take enforcement action about noise caused by a neighbour in 2022.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I am looking at what happened in 2022. Mr D has previously complained to the Council about noise in 2019 and 2021, I am not considering those earlier incidents because Mr D had the opportunity to come to the Ombudsman at that time.

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 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

6. I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered Mr D’s comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 27 June 2022 Mr D contacted the Council reporting a noise nuisance caused by a neighbour. The alleged nuisance included a television, low buzzing sounds and his neighbour talking loudly. Mr D sent the Council another four emails about the noise in July and on 29 July asked the Council to reply. In August he sent a further five emails and again asked for an update. He spoke to the Council on 26 August and was advised there were issues due to low staffing levels.
9. On 15 September Mr D emailed the Council about the noise issue. The next day an Environmental Health Officer (Officer) reviewed the noise recordings submitted by Mr D along with his logs of the noise. They noted the noise was not loud on the recordings and there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance (SNN). They sent Mr D a decision letter that day explaining the action taken to consider the case. The noise was an annoyance to Mr D but it was not a SNN. No further action would be taken unless the noise got worse. At the end of September, the Officer spoke to Mr D and reiterated how the case had been considered and why there was no evidence of a SNN, for example a person talking loudly would not be classed as a SNN. There was no loud noise at an unreasonable time. The case remained closed.
10. Mr D complained to the Council at the end of September. He had proven there was a SNN, and the Council should evict his neighbour (a private tenant). The Council replied on 3 November. It explained how it was assessing and investigating cases. The evidence from Mr D indicated the pattern of alleged noise was unlikely to change and there was no SNN. The Council would not be able to collect evidence of a SNN.

What should have happened

11. The Council introduced a noise operational protocol in 2022. This sets out the four stages of a possible noise investigation:
1. Stage one: the Council allocates a case to an Officer who will consider the type of noise/ history of the complaint/ impact/ cause/ frequency/ timing/ nature of the noise. This may include assessing any recordings submitted via the Council’s Noise App. If there is no evidence of a likely SNN the Council will not take further action and will advise the resident the case is closed;
2. Stage two: validation of the complaint. If there is a probable SNN the Council gather additional evidence;
3. Stage three and four relate to serving enforcement notices where a SNN has been evidenced by the Council and taking additional enforcement action.
12. The Council’s policy notes that some noises may cause a disturbance but are not a SNN. It must consider how noise impacts on the “average person” rather than an individual complainant’s noise sensitivity. Types of noise which would not usually constitute a SNN include the sound of neighbours talking/ footsteps/ domestic appliances. The Council allows there may be circumstances where these noise types could be investigated further depending on the individual case.

Was there fault by the Council

13. Mr D says the Council should have taken enforcement action and sought to move his neighbour. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation. The Officer assessed the evidence provided by Mr D in line with procedures. They also explained their decision to him by telephone and in writing. The Council’s complaint response reiterated the Council’s findings. Whilst the complaint response wording was somewhat unclear it still correctly advised Mr D why the Council would not take the investigation further. Mr D disagrees with the Council’s decision, the Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decisions where Officers have adhered to the policy and procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman