Summary: The Council failed properly to investigate a complaint of noise nuisance. It twice closed the case without telling the complainant. The Council did not treat the complainant’s formal complaint about the lack of action fairly and objectively. The Council will apologise to the complainant and pay her £150 for the unnecessary frustration, time and trouble it caused her. If the complainant makes a further noise complaint about the same issue, the Council will properly investigate this.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not investigate her complaint of noise nuisance, was dismissive to her and did not contact her or visit her.

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’. 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)
3. 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 considered the complaint made by Ms X and discussed it with her. I considered records provided by the Council.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity comment on a draft version of my decision. I considered the comments they made before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and policy

7. Under s80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a local authority has a statutory duty to take such steps as are reasonable to investigate complaints about noise or other nuisance. It must take action to remedy the problem if it considers there is a statutory nuisance.
8. There is no legal definition of what makes a statutory nuisance. A noise happening in the day may not be a statutory nuisance, but the same noise at night might. A lower level noise lasting for long periods may also be a nuisance whereas a louder noise of shorter duration may not.
9. To decide whether to act, a local authority must first gather evidence of how often the noise occurs, when it occurs, how loud it is, and what affect it has on the complainant. It usually does this through noise logs completed by a complainant and its officers witnessing the noise personally or using noise recording equipment.
10. Where a local authority satisfies itself a statutory nuisance exists, s80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 says it must serve a notice (an abatement notice). This requires the abatement of the nuisance or the ‘execution of such works and taking of such other steps as may be necessary’ to abate the nuisance.
11. Information on the Council’s website says if someone complains about noise, the same working day it will write to the person complained about. It will tell them about the complaint and the law and ask them to reduce the noise. It will also write to the complainant explaining how it investigates noise complaints. It will ask the complainant to fill in a noise log for a least two weeks and then return them to the Council. If the Council thinks the complaint might be justified it will visit the person complained about within a week. If the noise continues the Council will arrange to visit the complainant when it will likely hear the noise. It will install noise recording equipment if the noise happens intermittently or at a time an officer cannot attend.
12. When opening the noise complaint form, the website tells you if you are not complaining about noise from neighbours an officer will contact you.

What happened

13. Ms X says in 2018 the church opposite her home repaired its bells. She says when the church switched them back on, they were loud.
14. On 22 June 2018 Ms X made a noise complaint to the Council by filling in a form on its website. She complained about noise day and night from the chiming of a church clock. She said the bells rang every quarter of an hour day and night. The form did not ask for details of how this affected her.
15. The same day Officer 1, an Environmental Health Manager, telephoned Ms X. His notes say he suggested Ms X could write to the Bishop. His note continues “meanwhile possibly ask if clock can be muffled”.
16. In a letter to Ms X dated 4 July 2019 Officer 1 said he told Ms X on 22 June 2018 that a chiming church clock could be considered normal and she should contact the church authorities. He said he told her meanwhile he would “task an officer to observe the noise.”
17. The Council did not contact the Church or send information or diary sheets to Ms X.
18. On 26 June Officer 2, an Environmental Health Officer, made a note he had tried to telephone Ms X but could not get through. The Council decided to take no further action.
19. On 20 August 2018 Ms X complained to a Councillor. She said the church bells boomed out every 15 minutes 24 hours a day. She said the bells were so loud they could damage the hearing of children in the nearby school. She said she had reported the problem to Environmental Health and asked The Diocesan Office to help. She asked why residents had to hear booming sounds all through the day and night.
20. On 22 August at 9:32 Officer 2 sent an email to Miss X saying he would visit her before lunch that day. He used the email address Ms X provided. Ms X says she did not get the email.
21. Officer 2 keeps a notebook of his visits. On 22 August he wrote he arrived at the church just after midday and waited for the 12:15 chimes. He did not see this as a problem but said he would arrange a further visit to witness the clock striking the hour.
22. Officer 2 returned the next day just before midday. His notes say Ms X was not available. His notes say gardeners were on site but stopped working. He listened to the bells ringing for midday. He wrote “Not overly intrusive. Slightly on loud side perhaps. “Typically characteristic of C of E bells”.
23. The Council’s records say on 21 December 2018 Officer 2 tried to telephone Ms X, but the message said it was not possible to connect the call. Officer 2 decided as Ms X had not contacted the Council again, he would close the case and reopen it if Ms X made contact.
24. The Council did not write to Ms X to tell her this.
25. Ms X says she is not the only resident disturbed by the bells. She says she has attended several residents’ meetings arranged to discuss the problem. She says on advice from the CAB she acted as spokesperson when dealing with the Council. Ms X says she followed the Council’s advice and contacted the Diocesan Office but did not get the result she wanted. She wanted it to stop the quarter hour chimes and switch the bells off overnight.
26. Ms X says the residents started private action against the church.
27. On 17 June 2019 Ms X made a complaint to the Council. She said after the first telephone call to her the Council had done nothing. She said the Council had agreed to measure the noise but had not done so. She said the bells blighted residents lives especially as neighbouring properties included a school and sheltered housing. She said the bells rang every quarter of an hour during the day and every hour at night. She said you could not have a conversation in the street when the bells rang. She wanted the Council to accurately record the noise. She said residents felt forced to take private action and had told the Council about this, but it did not reply.
28. The Council has a one stage corporate complaints procedure. This says it will get an appropriate manager to act as an investigating officer and respond.
29. The Complaints Department asked Officer 1 to deal with the complaint. Officer 1 emailed the Complaints Department and said

“I remember this. Someone bought or moved into a house within earshot of a clock and then complained about the noise of chimes.  I don’t know why we would measure the noise since there is no level representing what is acceptable / unacceptable and as far as I am aware this is the only person who was complaining about them. I doubt there is an answer here. When I was involved in a similar situation many years ago the bishop said “that church has been there for over 800 years and neither you or anyone else is going to do anything about it”. Fair enough!”

30. Officer 1 said he would ask Officer 2 to draft a response.
31. Officer 2 made another visit on 24 June 2019. His notes say he knocked twice at Ms X’s home but got no answer. He says he took photographs and listened to the bells at midday. He said they were clear and what you would expect from a church clock. He said he could not assess from inside but notes only 2 windows facing the church and said keeping these closed would reduce the noise.
32. Ms X says if she was not a home, Officer 2 could have asked a neighbour to let him assess from inside their home instead. Ms X also says her door is difficult to see and Officer 2 might have knocked on the wrong door.
33. On 3 July Ms X sent another email to the Complaints Department. She said, with others, she had been in Judge’s chambers seeking an injunction against the Church. She said the Judge had asked why the Council had not done its job.
34. On 4 July Officer 1 replied to Ms X’s complaint. He said when the Council visited in August 2018 it listened to the midday chimes and decided the noise was not a statutory nuisance. He apologised for not telling Ms X, but said the Council had difficulties contacting her by phone. He said Officer 2 tried to contact Ms X without success on 24 June 2019. He said Officer 2 had again listened to the midday chimes and decided they were not causing a statutory nuisance. He said that ended the Council’s duty to investigate her noise complaint.
35. Officer 1 noted what Ms X said about the Judge’s comments. He said if either side required the Council to attend a hearing or present evidence, it would testify it had satisfied its legal duty.
36. Officer 1 said Ms X had not told the Council how the chimes affected her until she made an official complaint.
37. Ms X says in the telephone conversation of 22 June 2018 she told Officer 1 how the noise affected her. She says the problem is not a one-off ringing, it is the cumulative affect. She says it is worst in Summer and at night. She says, no matter how hot it is, she cannot open her windows. She says she does believe the Council telephoned her or tried to visit her.
38. Ms X says she did not continue with private action as she had no noise measurements. She says she has continued to contact the Church and things are moving forward. She says a new Vicar will soon take over and she has had two productive meetings with the new Vicar. She says the Vicar has said she will investigate what action she can take, including if it is possible to muffle the bells. Ms X says she wants to give the Vicar time to resolve this amicably, so at present, she does not want the Council to take formal action against the Church.
39. The Council says Ms X did not complain about the cumulative 24/7 impact of the chimes. It says as officers have visited and Ms X was not at home, Ms X might not be exposed to the chimes 24/7. It says the only way Ms X has said the noise causes her a nuisance is when trying to have a conversation in the street. It says it has not received complaints from others, which suggests other residents do not find the chimes unreasonable. It says it visited at midday as this is when the clock would chime most, and people are more likely to have a conversation in the street at midday not midnight.

Analysis

40. The Ombudsman cannot say if a noise causes a statutory nuisance. Our role is to consider if the Council followed a proper process on receiving a complaint of noise nuisance.
41. I do not consider the Council followed a proper process.
42. The Council says Ms X did not complain about the cumulative impact of the chimes. This is incorrect. Her web report and complaint to a Councillor say she is complaining about the bells ringing day and night.
43. Although an officer telephoned Ms X on 22 June, the Council did not send Ms X any information on how it would investigate her complaint or ask her to fill in any diary sheets. It did not contact the Church. It says it told Ms X an officer would visit and observe the noise. This did not happen until two months later, after Ms X complained to a Councillor.
44. The notes say the Council took no further action as it tried to telephone Ms X but could not get through. This is not an acceptable reason for failing to investigate her noise complaint, particularly as the Council had said it would visit.
45. The Council has the notebooks filled in on the day which is evidence Officer 2 did visit on 22 and 23 August 2018. As the Council only had a complaint from Ms X it could not discuss this with her neighbours so could not ask to assess from their homes.
46. I have seen evidence Officer 2 sent Ms X an email on 22 August 2018 and do not know why she did not receive it. On this date Officer 2’s notes do not say he knocked on Ms X’s door, only that he went to the Church and listened to the 12:15 bells.
47. On the 23 August 2018 the Council listened to the midday bells. It now says it decided this was not a statutory nuisance.
48. I cannot say for certain the Council tried to telephone Ms X. I am aware Ms X changed her mobile telephone between making the original noise complaint and making a formal complaint about the lack of action. I am also aware Ms X’s home telephone number does not take voice mails. Therefore, it is likely the Council did try to telephone her. However, the Council did not try to telephone Ms X for four months after its first visits. This is fault. It then did not write to her to tell her the result of her noise complaint. This is fault. That the Council had difficulty contacting Ms X by telephone is not a reason for failing to write to her.
49. The Council did not take reasonable steps to investigate Ms X’s noise complaint before deciding there was not a statutory nuisance. It listened to the bells at midday. If the bells only rang at midday this would be enough. However, the Council must consider how often the noise occurs, when it occurs, how loud it is and the affect of the complainant. The Council has not considered this. This is fault.
50. The Council says Ms X did not tell it about any affect on her until 17 June 2019. The Council’s form does not ask what affect the noise had. The Council telephoned Ms X on 22 June 2018. Ms X says she said what the affect was on her. I cannot prove this. However, I would expect the Officer calling about her noise complaint to ask what affect it had on her.
51. The Council says Ms X only said the bells stopped her having conversations in the street. I can find no evidence the Council has asked Ms X what the affect on her is. It has not met with her or sent her information on how it investigates. It has instead taken one comment from her complaint as the only affect on her.
52. The Council says as Ms X was not in when it visited her, this suggests she is not exposed to the chimes all day every day. The Council’s records say an officer knocked at Ms X’s door twice, 23 August 2018 and 26 June 2019, ten months apart. For the first visit Officer 2 sent an email; which Ms X says she did not get. For the second Officer 2 gave no warning of the visit. From this it is not reasonable for the Council to assume Ms X is often away from her home.
53. The Council says only Ms X has complained. Ms X says she is representing others. She has not given the Council evidence of this. However, the Council has a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate a complaint of noise nuisance, even if only one resident complains.
54. When Ms X made a formal complaint in June 2019 the Council again went to visit. This time there is no evidence the Council tried to contact Ms X and arrange a time with her. Again, the Council listened to the midday chimes and decided this was not a statutory nuisance, without considering the cumulative effect.
55. The Council only has one stage in its complaint procedure. Therefore, it is particularly important it deals with complaints fairly and objectively. The Council asked Officer 1 to deal with the complaint. The Council did not reallocate the complaint when Officer 1 made it aware of his involvement in the case. The email from Officer 1 to the Complaints Department does not give the impression Officer 1 would approach the complaint with an open mind. Officer 1 also said he would get Officer 2, an officer junior to him, to draft the complaint response. Officer 2 was the person who had considered the noise complaint. It was not appropriate for Officers 1 and 2 to deal with Ms X’s complaint. The Council is at fault for failing to get an appropriate manager, not previously involved in the noise complaint, to investigate Ms X’s complaint.
56. I do not know if the Council would have a found a statutory nuisance if it had properly investigated Ms X’s noise complaint. In other circumstances I would ask the Council to now install noise recording equipment and reconsider. Ms X does not want to do this at the moment as she is trying to resolve the problem directly with the Church.
57. The Council has caused injustice to Ms X. She has suffered unnecessary frustration, time and trouble.

Agreed action

58. To put matters right for Ms X within one month of my final decision the Council will:

• Apologise to Ms X
• Pay her £150 for her frustration, time and trouble
• If in future Ms X makes a new complaint about the Church bells the Council should offer to install noise recording equipment. It can then properly consider if there is a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

59. The Council is at fault and had caused injustice. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman