Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not properly investigate her noise complaint against her neighbours or concerns about their care. Mrs B says she suffers constant noise from her neighbours and cannot enjoy her home. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs B, with the support of a representative, complains the Council did not properly investigated her noise complaint against her neighbours or concerns about their care.
2. Mrs B says she suffers constant noise from her neighbours and cannot enjoy her home.

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 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• Mrs B’s complaint:
• information provided by Mrs B and her representative;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
6. Mrs B and the Council can comment on this draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils must investigate complaints about matters which could be a nuisance covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These include complaints about noise.
8. The Council must decide if the noise is a statutory nuisance.
9. For a noise to amount to an actionable statutory nuisance, two conditions must be met:
• It must cause significant interference to the normal occupation of premises by a person of average sensitivity.   
• It must be caused by some unreasonable or unusual act or omission or behaviour. 
10. In deciding if a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, the Council must take account of factors such as the frequency, duration and characteristics of the noise. The assessment is not based on decibel limits.
11. If the Council considers the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance it must serve an abatement notice.
12. Members of the public can apply to Magistrates Court for an abatement notice.

Council policy and procedure

13. On receiving a complaint about a noise disturbance, the Council sends the complainant an advice and a noise pack. The Council asks the complainant to complete the questionnaire and log sheets.
14. If the completed log sheets do not satisfy the Council of a potential statutory nuisance, the complainant is notified, and the complaint closed.
15. If the completed log sheets warrant further investigation, the Council will tell the complainant and asked them to keep further log sheets.
16. The Council will carry out up to three monitoring visits as part of its investigation.
17. If the Council decides, on the balance of probability, a statutory nuisance exists then an abatement notice will be drafted and served.

What happened

18. This chronology contains key events and does not cover everything that happened.
19. Mrs B lives next to two individuals with learning disabilities. These individuals cannot live independently and are supported by the care provider 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

First noise complaint

20. In May 2018, Mrs B complained to the Council about noise coming from her neighbours’ house, property A. Mrs B reported she could hear screaming and banging. The Council sent Mrs B a noise information pack which included a questionnaire and diary sheets.
21. Mrs B returned completed noise log sheets to the Council in June 2018. The Council reviewed the case and decided because of the origin and nature of the noise, it was unlikely to be a statutory nuisance.
22. The Council contacted the care provider and explained it had received a noise complaint about property A. The care provider spoke to the Council the following day and explained the measures it had put in place to reduce noise. The care provider asked for more information about the noise, so it could respond to the complaint better. The Council updated Mrs B and asked her for more information about the noise disturbance.
23. In July 2018, the care provider raised concerns with the Council because relations were worsening with Mrs B. The Council offered to go with the care provider to meet with Mrs B. Mrs B decided she did not want to meet with the care provider.

Second noise complaint

24. Mrs B visited her councillor to discuss the noise disturbance. The councillor complained to the Council on Mrs B’s behalf in September 2018.
25. In October 2018, the Council met with Mrs B and other residents to discuss their concerns about property A. The group complained about the noise and the care given to the residents.
26. During October and November 2018, the Council carried out three site visits. The Council decided the noise from property A would cause Mrs B a level of disturbance.
27. The Council discussed the complaint with the care provider. The care provider explained it had made further changes to property A to reduce the noise.
28. In January 2019, the Council wrote to Mrs B’s following the complaint made on her behalf in September 2018. The Council explained it had taken time to respond because it had to investigate the noise complaint. It outlined the evidence considered during the investigation which included:
• monitoring visits;
• environmental health assessment;
• visits to Mrs B;
• professionals’ meetings; and,
• logs and complaints submitted by Mrs B and other residents.
29. The Council said the noise coming from property A was not a statutory nuisance and it would not take formal action against the tenants. The Council explained the care provider had made every effort to reduce the noise and would be happy to continue to work with Mrs B going forward. The Council told Mrs B it was going to close her complaint and she could contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied. Mrs B raised a complaint with the Ombudsman.

Third noise complaint

30. In January 2019, Mrs B visited her councillor. The councillor wrote to the Council again stating the noise disturbance appeared to be recurrent and was causing Mrs B distress. The councillor sent the Council Mrs B’s notebook listing the noise disturbances.
31. The Council checked and confirmed there were no planning permission contraventions associated with property A.
32. The Council told the care provider another noise complaint had been received. The Council asked it to take steps to reduce noise. The Council carried out a site visit and identified ways the care provider could reduce noise.
33. The Council met with Mrs B who agreed it could install noise monitoring equipment. The Council installed the monitoring equipment in February 2019. The data was analysed by the Council in March 2019. The Council decided the noise was not a statutory nuisance as it was only audible for two to three minutes a day.
34. The Council updated Mrs B and her councillor in May 2019. Mrs B said she did not accept the findings. The Council offered to carry out further monitoring, but Mrs B declined.
35. In June 2019, the Council met with Mrs B, her councillor and other residents. The residents disputed the results of the sound monitoring. The Council said it would find out if there was an alternative method of monitoring the noise. The Council said it would arrange a meeting between Mrs B and the care provider to discuss her noise complaint.

Analysis

36. In May 2018, Mrs B made a noise complaint to the Council. The Council reviewed the information Mrs B provided and decided it was not a statutory nuisance.
37. Between September and December 2018, the Council carried out another, more thorough investigation into the noise disturbance following a complaint made by Mrs B via her councillor. The Council decided the noise disturbance was not a statutory nuisance.
38. In January 2019, Mrs B’s councillor made another complaint on her behalf. The Council carried out another investigation and installed noise monitoring equipment. The Council reviewed the recordings and decided the noise disturbance was not a statutory nuisance.
39. In total the Council investigated Mrs B’s noise complaint on three occasions between May 2018 and May 2019. On each occasion, the Council did not find evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. The Council followed national and local policy and procedure, and there was no fault in the way it investigated the noise disturbance.
40. Where there is no fault in the way a Council makes a decision, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the decision. This means I cannot question the Council’s assessment that the noise disturbance was not a statutory nuisance.
41. Each time the Council decided there was no statutory nuisance, it could have closed the case. Instead, the Council continued to work with Mrs B and her neighbours’ care provider to try to resolve the issue.
42. Safeguarding concerns were raised by Mrs B about the care of the tenants in property A. The Ombudsman has reviewed evidence shared by the Council and is satisfied with the actions it has taken in response to this concern.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Ms B’s complaint

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman