Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council responded to reports he made about waste, anti-social behaviour and noise. The neighbour’s behaviour causes Mr B stress and anxiety, which Mr B says the Council has compounded. We did not find there was fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Council failed to act on reports he made of noise nuisance, anti-social behaviour and vermin at a neighbouring property. The issues mean Mr B and his family cannot enjoy their home but cannot sell. Mrs B will not stay at the house or leave the house without her husband. Their son and daughter stay with friends and relatives. The noise and lack of sleep has affected their daughters’ study. Mr B lost his weekend job due to constant tiredness. The family worry for their safety due to their neighbour’s behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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

4. I considered:
• Information provided by Mr B, including during a telephone conversation.
• Information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
• The Environmental Protection Act 1990.
• The Crime & Disorder Act 1998.
• The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
• The Council’s noise nuisance policy.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Noise

6. Mr B contacted the Council in January 2019 to complain about noise and anti‑social behaviour by his neighbours. Mr B reported loud TV noise, loud voices, shouting and screaming. He stated his family needed to wear earplugs in bed to sleep. In addition to the noise Mr B stated there had been confrontation, the police had issued his neighbour with cautions and he was concerned about his wife’s safety when he was not around.
7. Around ten days later, an environmental health officer (Officer A) visited the neighbours Mr B complained about. Officer A called Mr B to confirm the action taken and told him to let them know if the problem continued. Around three weeks later the Council closed the complaint as Mr B had not been back in touch.
8. In early March Mr B emailed Officer A to confirm problems were continuing. He received no reply, so he emailed again a week later.
9. The Council sent Mr B diary sheets to complete and wrote to his neighbours to say it had received a complaint. Mr B provided more information and advised he was in contact with the police. Officer A contacted the police to establish what their involvement had been.
10. Mr B sent completed diary sheets to the Council. Based on the diary sheets Officer A decided to install noise monitoring equipment. The equipment was installed after Mr B returned from holiday.
11. When Officer A came to remove the equipment, two weeks later, Mr B explained the period had been quiet. He also told Officer A he had mentioned the noise monitoring equipment to his neighbour’s landlord. Because of this, the Council left the equipment in place for another week.
12. Around two weeks later Officer A advised Mr B there had not been statutory nuisance. The Council wrote to Mr B to confirm the outcome and Officer A wrote up the findings in a report. The letter to Mr B stated only that on conclusion of the council’s procedures and following a review of the evidence it could not substantiate a statutory nuisance. It did not share the officer report with Mr B.
13. The Council sympathised with Mr B’s position but stated there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the courts this was a statutory noise nuisance. The letter noted that background noise levels in the Countryside were lower which meant noises were more noticeable. The Council explained the law required it to notify people if noise monitoring may be happening in general. However, they would not tell the subject of an investigation when it will take place. The Council stated the law prevented any substantive use of Mr B’s own recordings, for example they could not be used in court.
14. In addition to writing to Mr B to confirm the outcome of the investigation, Officer A tried to meet with Mr B’s neighbour. The Council did not meet with the neighbour but sent a letter about their behaviour and offered mediation.
15. Mr B complained to the Council following its decision there was no statutory nuisance. Mr B stated the Council had not explained how it reached its decision or what it considered. He stated he had received no feedback on all the diary sheets he completed, and he felt Officer A should have contacted them at the outset, before visiting his neighbours to understand the context of the complaint. Mr B also felt, because his neighbours said they knew Officer A, she should have been replaced. He said his neighbour appeared to know when the noise equipment was installed and later when it was removed. He complained the Council refused to consider evidence he recorded himself, it only relied on the recordings from noise monitoring.
16. The Council delayed responding to Mr B’s complaint. The Council confirmed again that Officer A did not know Mr B’s neighbours and his written complaint about the noise had provided enough detail for her to start investigating without contacting him first. The Council stated its officers had followed the proper process and it explained the factors it considered when assessing noise. It also shared the officer’s notes and her report to show what she had made of the recordings and more detail about her decision.
17. Officer A’s report and the notes made when assessing her recordings show how the officer decided the significance and severity of the noises recorded and the content of Mr B’s diary sheets.

Anti-Social Behaviour

18. The Council told us it has no anti-social behaviour team. It states its role is to signpost people to other services who can help. It provides a definition of anti-social behaviour on its website and directs reports of anti-social behaviour to the Police.
19. The Council is part of the Community Safety Partnership which includes other councils and the Police. The Council makes its strategy for dealing with these issues available on its website. The Council has a Community Safety Officer. However, their role is at a strategic level with partner organisations.
20. The Police told the Council’s Community Safety Officer about reports Mr B made to the police about his neighbours. The Community Safety Officer contacted Officer A about this.
21. The Police told the Council that Mr B reported several public order incidents. The Police issued a Community Protection Warning to his neighbour following verbal abuse aimed at Mr B’s wife. The warning prohibits his neighbour contacting Mr B’s wife and prohibits the neighbour from using abusive language for 12 months. If the terms of a Community Protection Warning are breached, a Community Protection Notice can be issued.
22. From the contact the Police had with Mr B, it was aware of the noise issues he reported. Officer A spoke to the police to explain the Council’s position about the noise.

Waste Management

23. In addition to noise and anti-social behaviour issues, Mr B reported that his neighbours were not using their bin to dispose of rubbish. Rather, they were keeping rubbish at their property in bags. When these accumulated to a certain degree they would disappear overnight. He stated this behaviour encouraged vermin.
24. Officer A viewed the bags Mr B referred to at a visit to his home, but she did not consider the issue was significant. The Council referred the issue to officers responsible for bin collections. As there was no evidence of rat activity, the bins were being presented and collected regularly, and there was no significant build up of waste at the property, the Council did not take further action.

Was there fault by the Council?

Noise

25. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on councils to investigate complaints that a statutory nuisance has occurred or may be likely to occur. What constitutes a statutory nuisance is not defined in law, it relies on a judgement being made. However, if a council witnesses a statutory nuisance, they have a duty to issue an Abatement Notice.
26. It seems clear that Officer A’s focus was noise, and whether action could be taken under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
27. Mr B is concerned the Council did not contact him to clarify his complaint before contacting his neighbour. The Council’s policy for investigating noise nuisance does not require it to contact the complainant following the initial report. Therefore, the Council acted in accordance with its policy and there is no fault. However, it would be good practice in future for officers to speak to both parties before starting a noise investigation. This gives both parties an opportunity to clarify and confirm their position.
28. I am satisfied the Council took reasonable steps to investigate the noise. They asked Mr B to keep diary sheets and installed noise monitoring equipment. Having seen the officer’s notes and her report I am satisfied there was no fault in the way the Council decided there was not a statutory nuisance. I understand Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision, but this was a judgement Officer A was entitled to take. The law does not define what a statutory nuisance is, it relies on an assessment by council officers. The Council records show how the officer reached her view. As there was no fault in the way the officer made her decision, I have no grounds to question it. However, it would have been a better service if the Council had explained the officer’s findings in more detail or shared a copy of the officer’s report with Mr B sooner. The Council is changing its standard ‘closure’ letters to personalise the response and explain how it reached its decision to improve its future service.
29. Mr B felt the Council dismissed recordings he had made. The Council told him that it could not use the recordings in the event the matter went to court and its equipment was specially calibrated. Although evidence recorded on other devices may not be suitable for formal prosecutions, I would expect it to be considered as it may help identify activity that should be investigated further or help identify trends. However, in this case the Council went on to install its own recording equipment to assess the situation and Mr B provided diary sheets to help the Council understand the type of activity that was a problem. So, even though Mr B felt this information was not considered properly, I do not consider it impacted the overall decision as to whether there was a statutory noise nuisance.
30. The Council refuted Mr B’s neighbour’s statement that Officer A was known to them. I have seen no evidence put to the Council to suggest this warranted any further investigation, and do not criticise the Council for keeping the officer on the case.

Anti-Social Behaviour

31. The Council has a duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to do all it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder, the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances, and to prevent re-offending.
32. Sections 5 and 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 place a duty upon Local Authorities and other bodies to formulate and implement strategies for reducing crime and anti-social behaviour in their area.
33. Mr B felt the Council failed to take his complaint about his neighbours seriously. While the Council has a specific duty to investigate complaints of noise (and other nuisances such as odour, dust etc), it does not have a specific duty to investigate anti-social behaviour itself. Rather, the Council’s duties are strategic in nature.
34. I recognise the behaviour of Mr B’s neighbours has been upsetting at times, particularly for his wife. I also understand he was concerned about his family’s safety if he was not at home. However, as the Council does not have specific duties itself, it is not unreasonable for the Council to direct people to report such issues to the Police. The Police can investigate to determine whether the law has been broken and they can take specific action. I understand Mr B reported several incidents of abuse/anti-social behaviour to the Police. The Police acted on this. There is evidence the Council liaised with the Police around the reports each were considering. Although I understand Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s overall response to his concerns, I have not found fault in the way the Council dealt with his anti-social behaviour concerns.

Waste Collection

35. The Council explained the steps it took to consider the report Mr B made about his neighbours accumulating waste. An officer viewed this while on site and the Council referred to other departments to consider whether there was an issue with the way waste was being presented or collected. I am satisfied it considered this appropriately and there was no fault in this regard.
36. The Council recently offered to visit the neighbour and discuss the accumulation of waste; to offer advice and to prevent any further accumulations. I do not know whether the Council took this action.
37. If issues are continuing, Mr B should report these to the Council so it can consider whether it needs to take any action.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman