Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council responded to her concerns about her neighbour’s loud music. The Council was at fault for not telling Ms X how it dealt with her reports of noise nuisance. It also failed to respond to her complaint. That caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment for the injustice caused. It will also remind staff to keep complainants updated about how they are responding to their noise nuisance concerns.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to investigate and take action against her neighbour’s following her reports of noise nuisance. She said she had been disturbed on an almost nightly basis, and that the noise nuisance had also affected her children who were studying for exams.
2. Ms X feels the Council her noise complaint differently because she is a social housing tenant. She wants the Council to apologise, to consider how it follows up noise complaints and tell her what it has done to investigate her concerns.

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

• I read Ms X’s complaint and the Council’s response to her.
• I asked the Council questions and considered the information it provided.
• Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
• I referred to the relevant legislation and the Council’s policy.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) places a duty on the Council to investigate any complaints of ‘statutory nuisance’. Statutory nuisance is a term commonly applied to the impact of noise from a property. For a noise to amount to a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property and/or
• Injure health or be likely to injure health
6. There is no set level at which noise becomes a statutory nuisance. The Council’s role is to make a judgement considering several factors such as the activity, locality, time of day, frequency and duration of the noise. If it finds the noise is a statutory nuisance it must take action to stop it.
7. The Council can also decide to take informal action if the noise complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance.

The Council’s Noise Nuisance procedure

8. The Council’s Nuisance Control Team (NCT) responds to complaints about noise nuisance.
9. Its policy states it will contact first time complainants within three working days of receiving a noise complaint. If the noise is occurring whilst the person is making the complaint it will contact the person as soon as possible.
10. It states the first contact is to establish as much information about the noise complaint as possible. The Council then categorises how best to deal with the noise complaint. It says in cases where there might be difficulties gathering evidence to substantiate the noise complaint it asks customers to complete a diary sheet for 2-4 weeks or it may ask for witness statements from other neighbours.
11. It states when the Council receives a new complaint it will send the customer a letter acknowledging the complaint, stating the action it will take and enclosing a noise diary and advisory leaflet. The Council says it will write to complainants:
• After it completes an initial assessment of the noise to explain if it can take action against the noise nuisance.
• If it witnesses a noise ‘nuisance’, to confirm its proposed action.
• If it has not received a further complaint after 3 months.
• If it cannot deal with the complaint under current legislation.
12. Complainants can report a noise problem online or by telephone. The Council uses the Noise App which complainants can use to submit recordings of the noise nuisance to the Council for assessment.
13. The Council’s policy for dealing with noise nuisance is currently under review.

What happened

14. Ms X complained to the Council in January 2018 about loud music from her neighbour. The Council sent an advisory notice to her neighbour the same day. It emailed a copy of that notice to Ms X but the email address was incorrect. The Council’s records show that although Ms X did not receive a copy of the advisory notice, the Council did not make further contact with her.
15. Ms X contacted the Council on two consecutive days in mid-July 2018. She initially emailed it about the neighbour’s loud music, talking, banging doors, the smell of cannabis and parties ongoing all night. On the second night, she telephoned the Council twice late at night reporting loud music. The Council did not respond to those calls. It said that was because she asked for ‘no contact’ when she called.
16. The Council emailed Ms X four days later. It said it dealt with noises that demanded a legal prohibition. It said that tended to be from loud music. It said noise from banging doors and talking loudly was a matter for Ms X’s landlord. It directed Ms X to the Noise App to record noise nuisance. It did not explain it was not taking any action over the reports of noise nuisance the previous week.
17. Ms X contacted the Council on 4 August 2018 because her neighbour was playing loud music. She emailed it again on 8 August, saying it had not responded to her noise complaint that week despite being told someone would call back and visit. She asked the Council to consider the email as a formal complaint.
18. The Council did not deal with that email as a formal complaint. It emailed her back and said it had attempted to call her back four times on 4 August, but she did not answer the phone. Ms X disputes the Council called her.
19. Ms X contacted the Council to report loud music on a further seven occasions between November 2018 and June 2019. The records show it telephoned her back four times. On three occasions the noise had stopped, the other time Ms X did not answer the phone. It said it visited her house once but there was no evidence of noise. It took no action twice.
20. In addition to her reports of noise nuisance, in January 2019, she sent a further email saying the Council had not responded to her complaint about how it was dealing with the noise issues. The Council did not respond.
21. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in May 2019 that the Council had not responded to her complaints. We passed the complaint back to the Council, who sent a stage one response to Ms X mid-June 2019. It partially upheld her complaint and accepted it had not responded to all her reports of noise nuisance. It said it had sent her neighbour an advisory letter in January 2018 and that some of the investigating officers involved in her previous complaints had left the Council. It said if she were still experiencing unreasonable levels of noise, she should contact the Council’s Nuisance Control Team (NCT).
22. Ms X remained unhappy and asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two. She said she felt the Council had treated her complaint about noise differently because she was not a homeowner. Ms X emailed the Council three times however those emails went to an incorrect email address. She sent a further email in September 2019 to the complaints service. The Council acknowledged that on the same day.
23. The Council sent a final response to Ms X in November 2019. It said the property she lived in had been identified as having very poor sound insulation. It said since January 2018, it had made two attempts to resolve her noise complaints.
24. The Council said it did not differentiate between homeowners and tenants when it investigated allegations made about statutory nuisances. It said where the alleged noise-makers have a tenancy agreement, the Council can ask the landlord to intervene in a tenancy management capacity. The Council said it had spoken to the housing association responsible for her property and that they had spoken to the alleged noise-maker. The Council recommended a joint meeting with itself and the housing association to help resolve the noise difficulties with her neighbour.
25. The Council accepted it could have done more to prevent Ms X’s noise complaint continuing so long, such as offering her a priority caller number. It also accepted the NCT had not responded to her within expected timeframes on several occasions. The Council offered Ms X £50 to remedy any injustice caused. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and retuned her complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s response to enquiries

26. The Council said Ms X had submitted eight noise recordings between 22 December 2019 and 22 February 2020. It did not consider the level of noise warranted further investigation.
27. Ms X provided a further four recordings on 29 February 2020. It said it initially wrote to her to say it did not consider the noise was a statutory nuisance. However, a senior officer at the Council reviewed the recording and decided it should have been considered as ‘actionable noise incidents’. The Council has offered to meet with Ms X and her housing association to try and resolve the problems.
28. The Council offered Ms X a further £30 remedy in February 2020, to acknowledge it did not respond to her complaint in August 2018.

My findings

How the Council dealt with Ms X’s noise nuisance

29. Ms X initially contacted the Council in January 2018 about loud music being played by her neighbour. It sent her neighbour an advisory notice but did not contact Ms X after the email it sent was not delivered. In addition, the Council did not follow its noise nuisance policy and:
• contact Ms X to discuss her noise complaint and gather more information about it; or
• ask her to complete a noise diary, or use the Noise App.
30. The Council should have written to Ms X in April 2018, to tell her it was taking no further action on her noise complaint. It failed to do that. All the above was fault.
31. Ms X telephoned the Council twice in one night in July 2018. The Council said it did not respond because she asked for ‘no contact’. However, the Council did not tell Ms X that asking for ‘no contact’ meant it would not take any further action about her complaint. That was fault.
32. Out of Ms X’s nine contacts to the Council between August 2018 and June 2019, it failed to respond (either on the night of the incident or within three working days) on two occasions. That was fault.
33. On three occasions, the Council telephoned Ms X back on the same evening she reported the complaint. It also visited her property. Each time, the noise had stopped so the Council did not take further action. The Council did not tell Ms X it was not taking action and therefore did not provide her with an outcome on her noise nuisance complaint. That was fault.
34. In addition, in its telephone calls to Ms X, the Council did not remind her to use the Noise App or explain that she needed to gather evidence of any noise nuisance to help it investigate her complaint. That was fault.
35. There is nothing to indicate the above faults were because Mrs X was a tenant and not a homeowner.
36. The Council’s faults meant Ms X did not know how the Council had dealt with her requests for service. She thought the Council was investigating her complaints about noise nuisance when it was not. That prompted further complaints that it was not dealing with the noise she was experiencing. In addition, it missed several opportunities to ask her to use the Noise App and collect evidence about the nuisance. Therefore, I am not confident the Council completed a thorough investigation into her noise allegations.
37. The Council offered a remedy of £50 for how it dealt with Ms X’s noise complaints between January 2018 and June 2019. However, I do not consider that sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.

How the Council dealt with Ms X’s complaint

38. Ms X emailed the Council a formal complaint in August 2018. The Council treated that as a ‘request for service’ and not as a complaint. That was fault. Ms X sent a further email in January 2019 asking for a response to her complaint. The Council failed to respond. That was also fault.
39. That fault meant the Council did not respond to Ms X’s complaint for ten months. That has caused Ms X additional frustration.
40. The Council offered an additional £30 to Ms X £80 for its delay in responding to her complaints. I do not feel that remedy is sufficient and reflects the injustice experienced.

Agreed action

41. Within one month of my decision the Council has agreed to:
• Remind officers to keep customers informed in writing of any actions they are taking to investigate their complaints including where they are taking no further action.
• Apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 to recognise the delay in dealing with her complaint putting her to avoidable time and trouble.
• Apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 for the avoidable distress caused by not keeping her informed of how it was dealing with her noise complaints.
• If Ms X makes further complaints, provide her with a priority number as described in the stage two complaint response, to report noise nuisance to.
• Provide the Ombudsman an update of any action it has taken in dealing with Ms X’s noise nuisance complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

42. The Council was at fault in how it dealt with Ms X’s complaints about noise nuisance. It has agreed to my recommendations, therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman