London Borough of Croydon (19 003 120)

Category : Environment and regulation > Noise

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 06 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s failure to respond properly and take effective action in response to her reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from her neighbour. Ms B says she suffered unacceptable levels of noise and anti-social behaviour for longer than necessary which affected her health and well-being. The Ombudsman has found delay by the Council but considers the actions it has already taken together with £100 and a review of procedure is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complains about the Council’s failure to respond properly and take effective action in response to her reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from her neighbour.
  2. Ms B says because of the Council’s fault, she has suffered unacceptable levels of noise and anti-social behaviour for longer than necessary which has affected her health and well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. I read the papers provided by Ms B and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Ms B after removing third party details. I have explained my draft decision to Ms B and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

  1. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include:
  • noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street
  • smoke from premises
  • smells from industry, trade or business premises
  • artificial light from premises
  • insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises
  • accumulation or deposits on premises
  1. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
  • unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and / or
  • injure health or be likely to injure health.
  1. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
  2. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
  3. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.
  4. If the council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay service of an abatement notice for a short period, to attempt to address the problem informally.
  5. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.
  6. A person who receives an abatement notice has a right to appeal it in the magistrates’ court. It may be a defence against a notice to show they have taken reasonable steps to prevent or minimise a nuisance.
  7. Councils have separate powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to deal with anti-social noise. Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as:
      1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person
      2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
      3. conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  8. An acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) is an agreement between a person, the Council and police. The person agrees not to engage in certain behaviour. The person does not have to sign an ABC as it is voluntary. It is not legally binding but can be used as evidence in court if the Council later takes enforcement action.

Key events

  1. Ms B reported noise from her neighbour’s property to the Council in early February 2018. Ms B said the noise included shouting and tribal chanting, hoovering and a child screaming. Ms B sent a further email the next day to add noise from a washing machine.
  2. The Council’s Noise Pollution Team assessed that Ms B’s report concerned non statutory and/or household noise and referred the matter to the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Team for its consideration of the powers available under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
  3. Ms B contacted the Council again in early March as she had not received a response. The Council confirmed it had passed the matter to its ASB team but the officer was on leave. Ms B contacted the Council again towards the end of March as she still had not received a response. The Council responded to Ms B at the end of March and arranged a visit for the following day.
  4. The Council contacted the landlord of Ms B’s neighbour and visited the property at the end of March but did not gain access. The Council spoke to other residents and one also reported disturbance from noise. The landlord confirmed it had sent a warning letter and was considering further tenancy action. The Council also contacted professionals supporting Ms B’s neighbour and received information which suggested they were vulnerable. It was established the noise from tribal chanting was being caused to a person who was not an authorised occupant of the property and this person subsequently moved out of the property.
  5. The Council provided an update to Ms B at the end of March and asked her to complete diary sheets.
  6. The Council contacted Ms B in early April to see if there had been any improvement. Ms B explained she had been away but before this and since returning there had been a significant improvement.
  7. Ms B reported further issues of noise to the Council in early July. These included the use of household appliances late at night, furniture being moved and noise from visitors in the early hours. Ms B also reported issues of inconsiderate parking by her neighbour obstructing access to her property during this period.
  8. The Council contacted the landlord and the professionals supporting Ms B’s neighbour. The neighbour also contacted the Council directly.
  9. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment at Ms B’s property on 24 July and collected this in mid-August. Ms B confirmed she had not needed to make any recordings.
  10. The neighbour agreed to sign an ABC which was completed in August. The landlord also took tenancy action against Ms B's neighbour.
  11. Ms B reported noise from loud music and her neighbour’s television during the early hours to the Council in mid-November. The Council contacted Ms B’s neighbour who provided evidence she had not been at the property during the relevant period. Ms B said she had made her own recordings of noise on her phone. The Council sought a copy of these recordings from Ms B.
  12. Ms B reported further noise and parking issues in January 2019. Ms B also provided her noise recordings from 2018 to the Council in early February. Ms B’s recordings included chanting which the Council considered would cause disturbance.
  13. Ms B complained to the Council towards the end of February about its response to her reports. The Council responded to Ms B’s complaint in mid-March. The Council accepted there had been some delay in responding to her initial report and apologised and offered £25. The Council explained it had subsequently had to consider the needs of her neighbour who was considered vulnerable.
  14. The Council reviewed the conditions of the ABC and considered the best solution would be for Ms B’s neighbour to move to alternative accommodation.
  15. Ms B raised a possible child safeguarding issue in March which was referred to the appropriate department. Ms B also reported noise from a baby crying.
  16. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment at Ms B’s property on 11 April and collected this on 16 May. The Council reviewed the recordings and assessed these as primarily normal household noise and a baby crying. Although some music could be heard the Council did not consider this was excessive.
  17. The Council referred the case in May for a multi-agency case to discuss the case, share information and plan action to bring a resolution to the case. The Council did not receive further reports of noise from Ms B.
  18. The Council was advised in June that Ms B’s neighbour was due to move out of the property and provided an update to Ms B. Ms B’s neighbour moved out of the property in July.

My consideration

  1. There is a delay between Ms B reporting noise in early February and any substantive contact by the Council until the end March. Although the Council had advised Ms B the matter had been passed to its ASB team and the reason for the delay I consider this delay to be fault. The Council has already provided an apology and offered £25 to Ms B in recognition of this delay and her time and trouble. The Ombudsman would welcome this action but I do not consider it is enough to remedy Ms B’s injustice given the improvement following the Council’s action.
  2. I do not consider there was fault in the remainder of the Council’s actions. It is clear from the information provided that the Council investigated Ms B’s reports and gathered evidence and properly considered all the information it had available. The Council also liaised with professionals supporting Ms B’s neighbour and her landlord.
  3. The Council took action it considered to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances after considering the available evidence and information about Ms B’s neighbour which it could not share with Ms B. I appreciate Ms B would have preferred the Council to take different action but I see no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach.

Agreed action

  1. The Council has agreed to:
      1. pay Ms B £100 in recognition of her upset and her time and trouble due to its delay between February and March 2018 within one month of my final decision; and
      2. review its procedures to ensure reports of noise that are referred to its ASB team are actioned and the complainant contacted in a timely way within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault but consider the agreed actions above are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings