Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly consider her complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour from a neighbour. We do not find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council has failed to properly consider her complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour from a neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke with Miss X about her complaint. I considered all the information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory nuisances

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
7. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
8. 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.

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 or fumes.
12. 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.

The anti-social behaviour case review (formerly known as the Community Trigger)

13. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
14. When a person asks for a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether it meets the local threshold. Relevant local bodies should 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.
15. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies should carry out the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then tell the complainant the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
16. Asking for an ASB case review is not the same as making a formal complaint against a council for how it has handled reports of ASB.
17. We can only consider councils’ actions in an ASB case review. We cannot investigate or make findings about any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police.

Summary of the key events

18. Miss X contacted the Council in March 2022 to report noise at her neighbour’s property. This consisted of children running, jumping and banging doors. The Council explained it did not investigate noise issues involving children.
19. Miss X reported further concerns. She said she wanted to make her complaint formal. This included the adults in the address making noise. The Council agreed to install noise equipment at Miss X’s property when it became available. It was noted this was installed in May 2022.
20. In the following month, the Council told Miss X the recordings had largely consisted of thuds, knocks and bangs in the range of 25-35 decibels. It said there was the odd dog barking. But overall, it said it considered it to be general household noise and said it would not pursue it further. It advised Miss X of a mediation service.
21. Miss X contacted the Council in September 2022 and said the noise problem persisted. The Council explained it was general household noise.
22. In December 2022 the Council visited Miss X after further reports and reiterated that the noise was general household noise.
23. Miss X reported further concerns in early 2023. The Council explained its previous investigation did not identify behaviour that would be considered so unreasonable as to justify further actions by the Council. It provided Miss X with details of how to take her own action.
24. In July 2023, Miss X said she could hear white noise and choral music. She said the neighbour had set up a sensor with timing to monitor her movements.
25. The Council visited Miss X. But it was noted she could hear music, but the Council officer could not.
26. In October 2023, it was noted Miss X had sought advice from a mediator. The Council told Miss X that whilst the mediator went to visit her property, they could not hear music but could hear a low sounding hum. They visited the neighbour’s property. But said there were no electronic devices installed. The Council said the hum that could be heard would not be considered a statutory nuisance and suggested:
• Miss X speak to a doctor to establish whether she suffers from tinnitus; and
• call an electrician to disconnect the fan from the light. This is because Miss X hears the music when the fan is triggered.
27. Miss X continued to report hearing the hum throughout October 2023. The Council agreed to attend her property and take a low frequency noise recording. It said it first needed to wait until the equipment became available.
28. The Council and mediator visited Miss X in November 2023. They asked the neighbour to turn all their power off. But Miss X said she could still hear the noise. Both the Council and mediator said without good evidence of the noise or its source, the Council could not take further action.
29. The Council told Miss X it had considered the noise recording which was taken in December 2023. It said there was nothing to indicate there was low frequency noise in the locality.
30. It was noted the Council was concerned for Miss X’s mental health. It asked Miss X if she agreed for it to contact her GP and refer her to the local mental health team for support.
31. Miss X advised the Council in January 2024 she did not have tinnitus and her hearing was normal. She said she could still hear the hum and choral music.
32. In the same month the Council told Miss X it had undertaken a thorough investigation and there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance. The Council asked Miss X to refrain from emailing or calling as there was no further action that could be taken.
33. Miss X continued to contact the Council in June and July 2024 reporting the humming noise. She later said she could now hear a high-pitched noise. The Council attended the property but could not hear the noise.
34. The Council wrote to Miss X in August 2024. It said:
• it had carried out a thorough investigation into the noise complaint. But said there was no evidence to suggest a statutory noise nuisance and closed the complaint;
• it may look into placing further restrictions on Miss X if her emails continue and are considered to be a disproportionate demand on officers; and
• it enclosed a leaflet detailing the process Miss X may wish to take if she decided to take her own action.

The anti-social behaviour case review (formerly known as the Community Trigger)

35. Miss X submitted a community trigger request in January 2024 and the Council advised Miss X of its decision to hold a review. The panel decided the response and actions taken by those agencies at the time were appropriate to the specific circumstances of Miss X’s case. The panel said there was nothing more any of the agencies could offer Miss X.
36. Miss X appealed this decision. A second panel reviewed the case and agreed with the original decision. It was noted that:
• there was no evidence to suggest why Miss X felt agencies did not take all available and appropriate actions during the case;
• there was no evidence neighbour were deliberately or intentionally causing any harassment, alarm or distress;
• there were no available options that hadn’t already been explored within the parameters of ASB legislation; and
• it had asked Miss X not to contact it again unless new evidence came to light.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

37. The Ombudsman’s role is to review councils’ adherence to procedure in making decisions. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear and cogent reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it. We do not make decisions on councils’ behalf, or provide a route of appeal against their decisions, and we cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with a council’s decision.
38. Between March and December 2022, the Council installed noise equipment but established the noise was general household noise. It explained it would not pursue matters further.
39. In early 2023, when Miss X continued to raise the same issues, the Council explained its previous investigation had not identified any unreasonable behaviour. Miss X was given advice on what she would need to do if she wanted to take her own action.
40. Later in the year Miss X said she could hear white noise and choral music. The Council attended the property but could not hear the noise. The mediator heard a low sounding hum. But the Council did not consider this to be a statutory nuisance. It suggested some options to Miss X which are set out in paragraph 26. The Council then carried out a low frequency noise recording. But it said there was nothing to indicate there was low frequency noise in the locality.
41. Miss X reported further issues in 2024. The Council attended the property but could not hear the noise. The Council wrote to Miss X in August 2024 explaining it had carried out a detailed investigation. It asked Miss X to refrain from making further contact.
42. In my view, the Council has carried out a thorough investigation and it has clearly explained to Miss X that it did not consider the noise to be a statutory nuisance. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take, and we could not criticise it. I have also not found any fault with the Council’s actions in the ASB case review. It considered the relevant information which is detailed in paragraph 36. But it decided the actions taken by those agencies at the time were appropriate to the specific circumstances of Miss X’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman