Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s failure to further investigate her complaints of neighbour noise nuisance. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, complains about the Council’s failure to install sound recording equipment to get evidence of the noise her neighbours’ movements are causing and its failure to take action to stop this noise impacting on her.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Ms B and reviewed the information she and the Council provided. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered the comments she made.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B is a housing association tenant who lives in a block of flats. Since 2014 she has complained about noise nuisance from neighbours living in the flat above her through three changes of occupants. Ms B says that, during the early hours particularly, she hears loud stomping and the dropping of items. She believes the previous occupants and the current occupants have made a noise deliberately to annoy her.
5. She has complained to the Council about this problem and it has investigated and visited her property to listen to the noise but it has told Ms B the noise is everyday household noise against which it has no grounds to take enforcement action. It has liaised with her housing association with a view to engaging with her to seek a resolution to the problem. It met with Ms B last year and repeated what it has previously told her with regard to the restrictions on its enforcement powers and to explain its position.
6. The Council has told Ms B that issues concerning soundproofing are matters for her landlord and not the Council. Ms B says she is aware she can take complaints about her landlord to the Housing Ombudsman Service under whose jurisdiction housing associations fall.

Assessment

7. Ms B is clearly disturbed by noise coming from the flat above her and this has been the case through 3 separate sets of occupants. While this is most unfortunate, the Council has investigated but concluded the noise is household noise and it has no grounds to take enforcement action and cannot help her further. The Ombudsman cannot review the merits of this decision.
8. Ms B is adamant that the way forward is for the Council to install sound recording equipment but even if this was installed it would only record what the Council views as normal everyday living noise, even though Ms B can hear her neighbours moving around in the early hours.
9. It has been pointed out to Ms B that in the view of acoustic specialists who have reported on the situation, the flats would benefit from sound insulation improvement works. However, this is a matter to be pursued with her landlord and, if she wishes, the Housing Ombudsman. Such works do not fall within the remit of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman