Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her complaints of nuisance caused by her neighbour. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X complains the Council has failed to deal with her complaints of nuisance from her neighbour, Mr Y causing distress to Ms X and family.
2. Ms X says the nuisance has been ongoing for six years caused by Mr Y running a business from his home. With noise from building works, barking dogs, lorry and skip deliveries. Ms X says Mr Y blocks access along the road with lorries and vans. Ms X says Mr Y applied to build a summerhouse in 2017 and the Council failed to properly consult with her and take her concerns into account.
3. Ms X says she has sent diary sheets to the Council and called its Community Action Network (CAN) rangers to witness the noise. But the Council has failed to act and place Noise Monitoring Equipment (NME) at her property.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance complaints from November 2017. The final part of this statement includes my reason for not investigating Ms X’s noise complaints before then. And Ms X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s planning application in 2017.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
7. 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

How I considered this complaint

8. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X and spoken to her about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided. I have explained my draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

9. Ms X complained to the Council in 2012 and 2015 about Mr Y causing a noise nuisance. The Council sent her diary sheets to complete and offered NME. The CAN rangers visited the site but witnessed no noise. The Council’s records show Ms X did not respond on both occasions so Environmental Health closed the cases due to not enough evidence of a statutory nuisance.
10. Ms X complained to the Council Mr Y was causing a nuisance and running an unauthorised business in 2016. The Council sent her diary sheets. The CAN rangers visited the site but found no noise and told Mrs X. Council records show Ms X did not return the diary sheets so Environmental Health closed the case. Planning services found no evidence of Mr Y running a business from his home so no breach of planning control.
11. Mrs X complained Mr Y was running a business from a summer house in 2017. Mr X put in a planning application for the summerhouse. The Council told Ms X and considered a planning report on the application. This included Ms X’s comments. The Council granted planning permission on the basis it was for domestic use. It found no breach of planning control by Mr Y and told Mrs X.
12. In November 2017 Ms X called the Council’s Central Control team twice about noise from Mr Y’s property. Ms X referred to a barking dog at Mr Y’s house and banging from waste delivered to and collected from his property in skips. Central Control advised the CAN rangers to attend. The Council’s Environmental Health team sent Ms X diary sheets to complete. The Council records show Ms X did not return the diary sheets, so the Council closed the case in December 2017.
13. Ms X contacted Central Control in April 2018 about Mr Y’s actions in digging up his drive. Ms X advised she would complain as the rangers had not attended previously. In July 2018 Ms X told the Council she had sent in diary sheets. The Council responded it had not received the sheets so asked her to resubmit them. Ms X returned the sheets. Ms X also sent emails she said showed she had reported the noise nuisance before, and the Council had not responded.
14. The Council replied it received a complaint from Ms X in June 2018 via the out of hours service. Environmental Health officers called Ms X and left a message asking her to telephone to discuss the case. Ms X called back but wanted to speak to an officer who was unavailable. The Council said an officer would contact Ms X to discuss the matter and whether it could take any action.
15. The Council told Ms X although she referred to a history of complaints the last recorded complaint from her by Environmental Health was in July 2017. It said it had no record of her sending diary sheets before, so closed the case. The Council said the recent diary sheets from Ms X had entries from April to July 2018 but were on the diary sheets dated for 2015 and 2016. The Council explained the investigation into Ms X’s recent complaints of nuisance was continuing.
16. The Council apologised and advised the CAN rangers had not attended in November 2018 as they had a large area to patrol and needed to respond to emergency situations. The Council said it would investigate Ms X’s complaint. It advised Mrs X to contact a generic email address for Environmental Health to ensure the Council captured all her correspondence. This was due to Ms X contacting multiple officers in different ways.
17. The Council arranged for an Environmental Health consultant to consider Ms X’s complaints as she no longer wanted to work with the previous Environmental Health officers. The consultant wrote to Mr Y advising of the complaints. The consultant told Ms X the Council was investigating and to fill in diary sheets.
18. The consultant advised Ms X that Environmental Health could only deal with noise nuisance and explained about dealing with noise from DIY. The consultant said Mr Y could carry out DIY work and this often took place at weekends. The issue of Mr Y running a business was for the planning services who had previously investigated. The consultant advised that issues at the property with boundaries and fences were civil matters. The consultant asked Ms X to return diary sheets and said the Council would install NME if she wished.
19. In October 2018, the consultant installed NME at Ms X’s property. The consultant advised Ms X the recordings picked up low level noise. But would visit Mr Y to discuss a possible resolution to matters.
20. In November 2018 Ms X complained about Mr Y causing a noise nuisance. This included building noise, banging from vehicle doors and a barking dog. Ms X said Mr Y was blocking the access road due to delivery lorries.
21. The EH consultant told Ms X he had visited Mr Y to discuss matters about noise. Mr Y apologised about noise from a new dog which had taken time to settle. The consultant said there was not enough evidence to take formal action against Mr Y under statutory noise nuisance. The consultant said some parts of the complaint were civil matters and suggested mediation. The consultant explained the actions taken including NME and the results found. The consultant said he had met with Mr Y and offered to meet with Ms X to discuss what could be done to resolve matters. The Council said Ms X replied that no one was helping her and declined the option to meet and discuss matters.
22. The Council confirms Ms X has an emergency number to call if needed and she has used the service. It says the road Ms X and Mr Y live on is a private road. So, any parking issues or vehicles blocking access are civil matters for Ms X to pursue with Mr Y.

My assessment

23. The documents provided by the Council show it has responded to Ms X’s complaints since November 2017. The Council issued Ms X with diary sheets to complete but unfortunately, they were not received back by the Council, so it closed it case. Once Ms X complained again in June 2018 the Council appointed a consultant to deal with the matter. The documents how the Council visited both parties to discuss the noise issues and installed noise monitoring equipment. This did not show a statutory noise nuisance from Mr Y’s property.
24. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision there is no evidence of a statutory nuisance, but the decision is a matter of officers’ professional judgement. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the decision itself without evidence of fault in the way it was made. I do not consider there was fault in this case.
25. This is because officers have visited Ms X and spoken to Mr Y about the alleged nuisances and considered the information Ms X provided. The officers do not consider there is evidence of a statutory nuisance. This is a decision the officers are entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision from the documents I have seen.
26. It is unfortunate the CAN rangers could not respond to Ms X’s complaint in November 2017. But there is evidence to show Central Control passed the matter to Environmental Health services to consider. So, I do not consider there are grounds to pursue this part of Ms X’s complaint any further.
27. The issues Ms X raises about disputes over the boundary, fencing and blocking the access road are all civil matters Ms X needs to pursue directly with Mr Y.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I am completing my investigation. I have found no fault by the Council in the way it investigated Ms X’s complaints of a nuisance caused by her neighbour.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

29. I have included information from 2012 to July 2017 as background information. But I have not investigated Ms X’s complaints to the Council before July 2017. As paragraph six explains we cannot investigate late complaints over 12 months old unless we decide there are good reason to. Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her concerns for several years.
30. The documents show the Council responded to Ms X’s complaints in 2012 and 2015. If Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s responses it was open to her to pursue complaints then. I do not consider there are grounds for the Ombudsman to consider Ms X’s complaints before 2017 now. In addition, Ms X objected to Mr Y’s planning application in 2017. It was open to Ms X to have complained to us before now if she was unhappy with the way the Council dealt with the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman