Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour. She says this impacted her health. We find the Council at fault which caused Miss injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and issue its decision without further delay.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour.
2. Miss X says this has impacted her mental and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Miss X complains about the Councils response to her reports prior to August 2023. As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons for us to do so.
8. In this case, I have decided there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and look back further than August 2023. I have therefore only considered the Council's actions from August 2023 onwards because this is 12 months before Miss X brought her complaint to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered all comments received before making this final decision.
10. I also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Noise nuisance

11. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
12. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
13. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

14. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
15. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
16. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise.
17. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Anti-social behaviour

18. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
19. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant (although we cannot investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord); and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

What happened

Noise nuisance

20. Prior to August 2023, Miss X made several noise complaints to the Council. The Council investigated and found the noise did not amount to statutory nuisance.
21. Miss X made several more reports of noise nuisance to different departments within the Council.
22. In early March 2024, the Council sent letters to Miss X and the alleged perpetrators of the noise nuisance.
23. In March 2024, Miss X made further reports of noise nuisance. She also made a formal complaint.
24. In early April, Miss X made further reports of noise nuisance.
25. A few days later, the Council responded to her complaint. It told Miss X she should contact Officer A to report further issues about her neighbours. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two.
26. In May, Officer B, visited Miss X. The alleged perpetrators of noise nuisance were not present at the time of his visit. Miss X described the noise nuisance to Officer B. They decided Miss X’s noise reports did not meet the criteria for statutory nuisance. They told her the Council could not take action against domestic noise.
27. In July, the Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint. It told Miss X it was satisfied it had handled her complaints of noise nuisance properly and so did not uphold her complaint.

Anti-social behaviour

28. Miss X made several reports of anti-social behaviour to the Council via email. She also reported anti-social behaviour incidents to Officer B during the visit in May. Officer B asked Miss X to report future incidents via the Council’s anti-social behaviour online application. Miss X told Officer B she preferred to report any incidents via email.
29. In mid-July the Council held a community risk management meeting to discuss Miss X’s case. This included Officer B and police and healthcare professionals.
30. In its stage two complaint response the Council told Miss X it had considered the information on her file and decided it could not substantiate her reports of antisocial behaviour.
31. In August, the police told the Council the evidence received from Miss X did not evidence antisocial behaviour.
32. To date, the Council is yet to issue its decision whether Miss X is experiencing anti-social behaviour.

Analysis

Noise nuisance

33. In its stage one complaint response, it informed Miss X to contact Officer A directly with any further reports of noise nuisance. Miss X did not report any further instances of noise nuisance to Officer A after the stage one complaint response.
34. Officer B relied on Miss X’s descriptions and evidence to assess the alleged noise nuisance. The information provided by Miss X included the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged noise nuisance. Officer B assessed the noise to be domestic noise. It is not mandatory for Councils to ask complainants to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits to assess the noise. I am satisfied the Council considered all relevant information, and made a decision in line with the relevant standards. This is not fault, and therefore I cannot question the outcome.

Anti-social behaviour

35. The Council says it has not yet established whether Miss X has been experiencing anti-social behaviour. Miss X first reported anti-social behaviour in May 2024. The Council says Miss X’s case is complex and its investigation is ongoing. This matter has been ongoing for ten months. I consider it was reasonable for the Council to have made a decision based on the information available it had following the information it received from other agencies in August 2024. This delay is fault which has caused Miss X uncertainty.
36. Furthermore, the Council’s policy says when investigations into alleged anti-social behaviour are ongoing, it will send complainants updates on any new developments about their case. The evidence I have seen does not show Miss X has received any updates. This is fault, which has caused Miss X further uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide a written apology to Miss X for the uncertainty caused to her by its delay in issuing its decision whether she has experienced anti-social behaviour, and for not providing updates in its ongoing investigation.
2. provide a written outcome to Miss X without further delay
38. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and issue its decision without further delay.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman