Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not respond to his complaints about noise nuisance coming from the property next to his. He said this caused him stress and negatively affected his sleep.
The Council was not at fault in how it handled Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X said he has complained to the Council about excessive noise coming from a neighbouring property for several years. He said the Council has not properly investigated his complaints.
2. Mr X said he cannot open his window or sleep properly because of the noise.
   This has caused him stress and inconvenience.

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 spoke to Mr X and discussed his view of the complaint.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
   This included email correspondence shared between Mr X and the Council and the Neighbourhood Noise Policy for Local Authorities.
7. I wrote to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory Policy

8. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires councils to investigate complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance.
9. Issues that may be a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or from vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
10. 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; or
• Injure health or be likely to injure health.
11. Generally, the Council would prefer to witness the statutory nuisance in order to 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 occurred.

What happened

12. Mr X complained to the Council in early 2018 because of noise coming from the garage next to his. The garage was being rebuilt and Mr X said the construction work was too loud.
13. The Council told Mr X a Council officer needed to witness the noise nuisance before it would take action against his neighbour. The Council asked Mr X to get in touch when he was experiencing the problem, so the Council could send someone to attend the site.
14. The Council also told Mr X it had contacted the garage in December 2017, when he previously called to complain about the noise, but did not find evidence of a statutory nuisance.
15. Mr X sent the Council recordings of the noise. He asked for a Council visit during the day, as this is when the noise would usually start. He said the Council should instruct the construction workers to place silencers on their equipment and insulate the building to reduce the volume of the ongoing construction work.
16. The Council told Mr X it could not accept recordings as proof of noise nuisance. Again, the Council explained he should either call the Council when the noise was occurring or seek legal advice.
17. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and he contacted it again in February 2018 after seeking legal advice. The Council provided statutory information relevant to Mr X’s complaint and reiterated its advice that Mr X should contact it when the noise problem occurred.
18. Mr X contacted the Council again in July 2018 and the Council repeated its advice to contact its noise and nuisance department. Mr X said he called this number and nobody from the Council attended. He said the Council told him if the noise was not continuous it could not do anything about the issue. He said calling the Council was not useful because the noise only occurred at random intervals and had usually stopped by the time a Council employee had attended.
19. Mr X continued to contact the Council about the noise and the Council responded to these reports on seven occasions between 23 November 2017 and 27 April 2019. On each occasion, when the Council called Mr X back to discuss attending the site, the noise had stopped. The Council physically visited the site on one of these occasions.
20. Mr X made a formal complaint in April 2019. The Council again referred Mr X to its dedicated noise and nuisance department and told him to contact it when the noise started to bother him. Mr X said he had tried calling the noise and nuisance department in the past, but it had not helped him. He also expressed upset the Council had not provided him with noise monitoring equipment.
21. The Council responded and told Mr X that the noise and nuisance department operated a reactive service that could attend Mr X’s home within one hour of his call. The Council also told Mr X it could only act if it witnessed a statutory nuisance. Mr X told the Council the noise had momentarily subsided and he would raise an official complaint if the issue reoccurred.
22. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council in May 2019. He said the Council had failed to investigate his complaint. The Council sent Mr X its final response, apologising for the inconvenience Mr X had experienced but again stating it could not investigate the issue unless a Council employee witnessed the noise disturbance.
23. Mr X referred the complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained unhappy with this response.

My Findings

24. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint by calling the property and visited it to witness and record the noise disturbance. The Council listed these attempts in its final response to Mr X. The record shows that on each of these occasions the Council visited the property or returned Mr X’s call to assess the situation, but the noise had stopped. The Council responded in line with its policy.
25. The Council decided the complaint did not warrant further investigation, as it had not found evidence of a statutory nuisance. The statutory guidance does not require the Council to take further action under these circumstances. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to question a decision the Council correctly made.
26. Mr X has said that the noise is sporadic and intermittent. He does not consider it useful to call the Council’s out of hours line because of this. This is not something I can hold the Council responsible for. There is no fault on the part of the Council.
27. There is no evidence a Council officer has ever recorded or witnessed a statutory nuisance at the property Mr X has complained about. If Mr X remains unhappy with the situation, he may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman