Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s response to complaints about construction noise, loud music and barking dogs. The Council responded to the complaints in accordance with its procedure and closed the complaints once it had considered all the available evidence.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains the Council closed his complaint about construction noise without making enough attempts to witness the noise. Mr X says the Council did not follow its own procedures when investigating.
2. Mr X also complains the Council has not investigated complaints about loud music and barking dogs.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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 read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr X and the organisation 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

Key facts

8. Mr X complained to the Council on 16 May 2022 about construction noise from his neighbour during the evening and weekends. Mr X explained that the work started in March and his neighbour was doing most of the work himself. Mr X asked the Council to make his neighbour confine his work to the hours on its website.
9. The Council sent Mr X a standard letter and sheets so he could keep a log of the noise on 23 May. A letter was also sent to Mr X’s neighbour to advise him a complaint had been made.
10. Mr X called the Council’s noise monitoring service at before 7pm on 27 May. The Council returned the call just after 7pm to be told the noise had stopped.
11. Mr X called the Council on 29 May to complain about his neighbours dogs barking. Mr X then emailed the Council on 6 June to ask the Council to telephone him as he had been unable to get through. Mr X called the Council again on 7 June to ask for a telephone call back.
12. The Council officer telephoned Mr X on 8 June. The Council said they had told Mr X’s neighbour that work till 7pm was reasonable. Mr X said he was still anxious about weekend work, to which the Council asked him to return the log sheet so they could investigate further.
13. Mr X returned the log sheets on 8 June. He expressed concerns that his neighbour had said they would be carrying out loud work Thursday to Sunday.
14. The Council officer spoke to the neighbour on 9 June. The neighbour said they would keep to the agreed times as long as the work went well as they needed to get the roof finished.
15. Mr X complained about music and construction noise from the neighbour on 12 June. He emailed the Council to complain there was music and construction noise at the weekend. The Council officer returned the call on 13 June, to say they would look over the log sheet and get some dates for potential monitoring.
16. Mr X emailed the Council on 27 June to say that problems were worse. The Council offered an out of hours visit to monitor the noise.
17. A Council officer visited just before 7pm on 1 July. There was no noise as the neighbour was not at home. Mr X reported noise from drilling at 1pm on 5 and 6 July and returned the noise log sheets on 6 July.
18. The Council officer telephoned Mr X on 6 July. The Council officer explained that construction noise would obviously be audible but would be less likely to be a nuisance on a Wednesday afternoon than a Saturday evening. Mr X said he did not need a visit that weekend as his neighbour was not at home.
19. Mr X called at 3pm on 11 July asking for an officer to visit due to construction noise. The officer visited but the noise had stopped. The officer revisited at 5pm but the noise had stopped again.
20. The officer visited at 11am on 12 July in response to Mr X calling. The officer noted loud drilling noise which was audible in the house. Mr X called on 13 July at 3pm but the Council officer emailed to say that no one was available to visit.
21. Mr X called to complain about the noise on 14 July. The officer emailed Mr X to explain the neighbour had one week of demolition left which would be done in normal daytime hours. The officer asked Mr X to call if the noise was outside permitted hours or there was loud music.
22. Mr X contacted the Council again on 1 August. He explained the noise had been better with no evening work for a couple of week but it was all day the previous Sunday.
23. The Council officer called Mr X and said they would try to arrange monitoring visits, especially for Sundays. Mr X was told by the Council on 5 August that they could not arrange a monitoring visit for the weekend but he could use the out of hours noise monitoring service number.
24. There is a note on the file that mediation between Mr X and his neighbour was arranged for 9 August.
25. Council officers called Mr X on the Sunday that week and on the 14 August but Mr X said there was no noise so officers did not visit.
26. Council officers visited Mr X on 24 August. They witnessed a bonfire from the neighbour and banging until just before 8pm. The notes say ‘not a time of day considered to be reasonable to be undertaking this type of work’. Officers called Mr X on 28 August but he reported there was no noise.
27. Mr X requested the community trigger on 2 September 2022 to investigate the handling of the case by the police, as Mr X had complained about harassment and anti-social behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour also. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) has a mechanism for alleged ASB victims to request a review of the handling of their case by the relevant bodies. This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
28. Mr X reported noise after 7 pm on 7,17 and 19 September. Officers told Mr X on 20 September that they intended to install noise monitoring equipment but did not have the capacity to be on standby for evening visits to monitor the noise.
29. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment from 22 September to 4 October. Officers visited and heard banging on 24 September after 7 pm. Mr X reported the noise monitor was not working on 2 October.
30. The Council installed the noise monitor again from 11 to 20 October.
31. The Council emailed Mr X on 21 October. It said ‘with regard to your complaint of your neighbour making noise from DIY/construction activities. I have discussed this case with other senior officers and considering the monitoring that has been offered/undertaken we have been unable to witness sufficient activities to be able to decide statutory nuisance. We have a duty to undertake a reasonable investigation which has now been completed. There I am closing the investigation. This does not prevent you from taking your own action’.
32. Mr X complained about his neighbour playing loud bass music and dogs barking on 12 November. The Council opened a new complaint, sending an initial letter and noise logs to be filled in. The Council told Mr X’s neighbour on 1 December.
33. The anti social behaviour team organised a mediation session with Mr X and his neighbour. No further log sheets or complaints were received by the Council’s noise team, so the complaint was closed in January 2023 as officers assumed the mediation had resolved the issue.

My analysis

Council’s noise investigation procedure

34. The Council has said that its noise investigation procedure is:
• Receive complaint.
• Send standard letter and log sheet to complainant, within 5 working days, advising them to complete log sheet when noise occurs and return within 28 days.
• After log sheets are returned, assess nature of noise to decide if it requires investigation.
• Consider log sheet entries to identify it the noise can be witnessed within normal working hours or whether out of hours shifts are required.
• Send letter advising alleged perpetrators that a complaint has been made and that monitoring may take place without further reference to them. NB. This is flexible and can occur earlier in the process if required.
• Send letter to complaint with further log sheet (to be completed at times when officers are not available and advise to call officers out to witness the noise when disturbed during working hours. Both in hour and out of hours contact details are given.
• Noise monitoring equipment may be installed at any point in the investigation following the letter to the alleged perpetrator.
• Visits by officer to witness the noise when calls come in and an officer is available.
• Review of evidence collected – timescale of review varies and is officer led based on factors such as number of calls to witness noise, numbers of visits made, type of noise, time of day, reasonableness of noise etc.
• Is the noise a statutory nuisance or likely to be a statutory nuisance based on the evidence obtained? If no, contact the complainant to inform them of decision and close complaint.

Construction noise

35. I can see the Council sent Mr X the standard letters and log sheets when he complained. The Council also wrote to Mr X’s neighbour. After Mr X returned the log sheets, the Council visited in response to calls, carried out prearranged monitoring visits and installed noise monitoring equipment.
36. After looking at all this information, the Council emailed Mr X to inform him that it would be closing the case as officers had been unable to witness sufficient activities to be able to determine statutory nuisance.
37. I can find no fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint about construction noise. It has followed its own procedure and reached a decision not to investigate further, after considering all the evidence.
38. I can see that Mr X had concerns the time it took to contact the Council by telephone. I can see that he reported having to wait in order to reach the Council’s contact centre. While I do not have sufficient evidence to decide whether or not there was fault on this point, I mentioned this to the Council. The Council said that ‘the Council has recently redesigned its telephone Interactive Voice Response (IVR) to include a specific option for Environmental Protection, thus reducing the amount of time a caller must wait listening to all of the IVR options’.
39. Mr X also says he does not think the Council visited enough to decide if there was a noise nuisance. The Council’s professionally trained officers made a decision that they had made enough visits, after looking at all the information which included log sheets and noise monitoring date. So, I consider this was a decision made by officers aware of all the relevant facts and there is no evidence of fault.

Noise from dogs barking and loud music

40. Mr X complains the Council has not investigated his complaints about noise from loud music and barking dogs.
41. Initially, I can see the Council considered the complaint about loud music as part of the construction noise complaint. But, that it was not mentioned specifically when the Council closed the construction noise complaint.
42. In response to this, the Council opened a new complaint specifically about the music and dogs barking. The Council sent the standard letter and log sheets according to its procedure and when it did not receive the log sheets back, it closed the complaint. I can find no fault in the Council’s actions on this complaint, as it followed its own procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman