Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly investigated a noise from a neighbouring property as it has not carried out monitoring when the weather is below freezing. The Council has installed noise monitoring equipment on two occasions and this includes when the temperature fell below zero. The Council’s professional judgment is the noise does not constitute a statutory nuisance. There is no fault in how the Council investigated the noise complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s investigation of noise from an air supply heat pump (ASHP) at the neighbouring property has not included monitoring when the noise is at its loudest.
2. Mrs X says the noise is causing her to lose sleep and making her ill.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X says the neighbouring property installed an ASHP against a boundary wall in the rear garden. She says the unit when operating is noisy and she can hear it in her property. Mrs X says the unit it as its nosiest when the temperature goes below zero.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council about the noise in January 2018. The Council asked Mrs X to complete diary sheets. The Council also visited the neighbours. Notes of the visit show the environmental health officer inspected the ASHP but it was not operating during the visit. The environmental health officer consulted with planning on his return who advised it was not a planning enforcement matter and planning could not take any further action.
8. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment at Mrs X’s property on 19 February. The equipment was installed in Mrs X’s bedroom as she says the noise is loud in that room and stops her from sleeping. The officer’s notes say that while setting up the equipment the fan was on but was barely audible in the bedroom. The officer noted that road noise was the main source of noise when the window was open. Mrs X said that the noise is at its worst overnight when the temperature drops.
9. The environmental health officer also visited the neighbours. He discussed mitigation measures and gave advice about what would happen if a statutory nuisance was found.
10. The officer listened to the noise recordings and considered the diary sheets Mrs X has completed for the same period. The Council’s professional judgement was that the recordings did not evidence a noise that was unreasonable or excessive and so no statutory nuisance existed. The Council notified Mrs X it would not be taking further action.
11. Mrs X contacted the Council again in December 2018 complaining about the noise. The Council agreed to re-open the case in order to monitor the noise in colder weather. It installed noise monitoring equipment at Mrs X’s property for a week from 4 February 2019. The Council noted the temperature was below 0 degrees on one night. Its notes say there was visible frost on the ground the following morning. The Council was not persuaded the noise recording during this second period of monitoring constituted a statutory nuisance and so took no further action.

Analysis

12. Mrs X says the Council has failed to carry out noise monitoring when the ASHP is at its loudest. She feels the monitoring that has been carried out is not truly representative of the problems she is experiencing.
13. I am satisfied the Council responded appropriately to Mrs X’s complaint. It asked her to complete diary sheets and installed monitoring equipment. The Council has witnessed the noise from the ASHP while at Mrs X’s property. It determined the noise was barely audible in Mrs X’s property.
14. Mrs X told me the noise is intermittent and the volume varies. She says it is at its loudest when the ASHP comes on at night when the temperature falls below zero. After completing the initial monitoring and closing the case, the Council agreed to re-open it and carry out more noise monitoring. The Council says that on at least one night the temperature was below freezing. It considers this gives it adequate information to take a view. The Council says that on average temperatures only fall below zero on 20 days a year.
15. I appreciate Mrs X is disturbed by the noise from the neighbour’s ASHP. However, the issue for the Council is not just whether there is a noise, but whether the noise experienced constitutes a statutory nuisance. It has carried out noise monitoring which has not provided evidence of a statutory nuisance. Mrs X says the monitoring has not been carried out when the weather was at its worst and the ASHP at its loudest. The Council says the second period of monitoring included at least one night when the temperature fell below zero which is when Mrs X says the noise is at its loudest.
16. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative actions and not the merits of decisions properly taken even though people may disagree with them. In this case the Council has taken appropriate action to monitor the noise. This includes during cold temperatures. The Council’s professional judgement is that a statutory nuisance does not exist. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s assessment but as I am not persuaded there is fault in how the Council carried out its investigations I cannot criticise the judgements reached.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated noise complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman