Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about the way the Council dealt with noise nuisance complaints made by the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with noise nuisance complaints he made. Mr X says:
• He was in a dispute with a neighbour who is mentally ill and well known to the Police. However, the Council’s noise nuisance officer did not accept or consider this and told him his neighbour had special needs or mental health needs in a phone call in early 2018.
• The noise nuisance officer threatened him with legal action. The complaint against him was accepted and legal action threatened in 4 hours and 26 minutes without investigation, verification or even discussion.
• The noise nuisance officer issued legal action against him whenever he made a complaint about the officer or mentioned the officer in his communication with the Council.
• His complaints were repeatedly closed without resolution or explanation and without being informed. He was forced to raise separate complaints which were then treated as new complaints without reference to the previous complaints.
• He was repeatedly asked to provide diary sheets without any action being taken.
• The noise nuisance officer told him in July 2018 that he did not know what to do about his complaint and said he could not act because Mr X was not making frequent nuisance reports. The officer accepted he was suffering nuisance, disruption and harassment but refused to take any action.
• Throughout 2018 and 2019 he reported anti-social behaviour, nuisance and harassment to the environmental health out of hours emergency phone line but there was no response.
• The noise nuisance officer documented and reported to his seniors and the Police that he had declined installation of noise monitoring equipment because he cancelled an appointment. The appointment was cancelled based on advice the officer gave him and because the officer delayed the appointment by a week and then intervened by having a friendly word with his neighbour.
• There was a police incident in August/September 2018 but no action was taken.
• He has footage of his neighbour banging on the floor and shouting at him in October 2018 which he provided to the nuisance officeer but no action was taken.
• The nuisance officer tried to end a telephone conversation with him in October 2018 by saying his neighbour had reported menacing and intimidating behaviour in early 2018. When he enquired into what exactly had been reported the officer was unable to respond. The officer lied to try and win an argument.
• The officer manipulated events and staged incidents for the benefit of noise monitoring. The presence of noise monitoring equipment in his neighbour’s home escalated his behaviour. The officer let it carry on in full knowledge and then used the evidence for legal action.
• He received a telephone call from the Police in October/November 2018 and the police officer told him the nuisance officer had asked him to call. The police officer said there was a plan to rehouse his neighbour and he should try to tolerate the behaviour he was reporting. This led him to believe the dispute was to be resolved and affected events.
• The nuisance officer failed to respond when he requested an interview under caution in January 2019.
• The Council did not provide noise monitoring equipment until February 2019 and then it was only to enable officers to escalate his stage two complaint. The Council then lost two weeks of recordings.
• The Council provided noise monitoring equipment again in April 2019 and advised him to make short recordings. But he was then told he had too many recordings. He was unable to catch any nuisance but this was because the Council provided noise monitoring equipment to he and his neighbour at different times. His neighbour’s behaviour escalated whenever the noise monitoring equipment was in his home.
• The Council refused to cooperate or communicate further in June 2019.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

6. I reviewed the complaint and considered background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory nuisance process

7. Councils must investigate complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.The noise complained about might be loud music, barking dogs, noisy neighbours, rowdy pubs or noise from industrial, trade or business premises.
8. For a noise to count as a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises
• Injure health or be likely to injure health
9. Generally, the statutory nuisance will need to be witnessed by the Environmental Health Officer and he/she will come to an independent judgement. The process of determining what level of noise constitutes a nuisance can be quite subjective. The level of noise, its length, timing and location may be taken into consideration in deciding whether a nuisance has actually occurred.
10. If an officer decides a statutory nuisance is happening, or will happen in the future, councils must serve an abatement notice. This requires whoever is responsible to stop or restrict the noise. If someone does not comply with an abatement notice they can be prosecuted and fined.

Background

11. For several years, Mr X complained his neighbour downstairs made loud noise at unsocial hours (between 11pm and 7am). Mr X made several noise complaints but says the Council failed to act.
12. The Council visited Mr X’s home; wrote to his neighbour; invited Mr X to keep diary sheets and installed noise monitoring equipment in his home. It did not witness any noise nuisance that would enable it to take further action.
13. In 2018, the Council served noise abatement notices on Mr X because it was satisfied a statutory nuisance existed due to noise emanating from his home.
14. In 2018, the Council also decided the long running dispute would be best resolved if a housing transfer could be arranged for Mr X’s neighbour who is a tenant of a registered social landlord. The landlord eventually accepted there was a need for a transfer and moved Mr X’s neighbour in August 2019.

Finding

15. On the whole, I do not find fault with the Council’s approach to Mr X’s complaints of noise nuisance. The Council was under a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate the complaints. It visited Mr X’s home, wrote to his neighbour, invited Mr X to submit diary sheets and installed noise monitoring equipment. These are steps the Ombudsman expects local authorities to take when investigating noise nuisance. I note Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s conclusion on the question of nuisance from his neighbour’s activities, but this Ombudsman cannot substitute his judgement for that of the Council’s officers in the absence of fault.
16. Mr X alleges the noise nuisance officer acted with bias against him and in favour of his neighbour. These allegations notwithstanding, the Council had the opportunity to obtain objective evidence through the noise monitoring equipment.
17. The dispute between Mr X and his neighbour was long running and involved accusations and counter accusations from both sides. It is often difficult to establish the facts of an alleged nuisance when it happens because council officers do not witness the alleged nuisance directly. So, it is often the case that officers rely on evidence obtained from noise monitoring equipment or their own first-hand observations.
18. By Mr X’s own admission, he did not ‘catch any nuisance’ when noise monitoring equipment was installed in his home. Given this outcome, I am not persuaded that an investigation by this service into the individual aspects of Mr X’s complaint is warranted.
19. My view here is reinforced by the fact that the Council worked to move Mr X’s neighbour from an early stage in 2018 as the only means of resolving the dispute. A local authority can pursue informal action if a matter complained about causes a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. The landlord eventually moved Mr X’s neighbour due to the Council’s efforts. This action was the outcome Mr X sought when he complained to the Ombudsman. I do not consider there is a residual injustice that now warrants further action by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council that warrants further consideration of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman