Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint alleging fault with its handling of the complainant’s reports of noise nuisance from events at a community centre next to his home.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance from events at a community centre next to his home. Mr X says:
• noise limiters were introduced following previous complaints he made but they are not being used properly and the Council told him it has no authority to check if they are being used.
• Windows at the community centre are open in the evenings.
• People smoke and drink in the community centre’s car park.
2. Mr X says noise from the community centre has a detrimental impact on his mental health and this led to him being sectioned in 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 reviewed the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I consulted the Ombudsman’s previous decisions on similar complaints made by Mr X.
6. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory noise nuisance

7. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities the power to take action about ‘statutory nuisances’ in their area. The Act includes noise as a statutory nuisance.
8. Local authorities must investigate complaints from members of the public about issues which could be a statutory nuisance. For the issue to be a statutory nuisance it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; or,
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
9. Where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists in their area, it must serve an abatement notice requiring the nuisance to stop or be limited to certain times. If a person does not comply with an abatement notice they can be prosecuted and fined.

Background to the complaint

10. Mr X lives in a flat next to a community centre. The community centre is owned by the Council but leased to a community association. Mr X has been complaining about noise form events at the community centre since 2009 and his complaints have previously been investigated by the Ombudsman.
11. The lease for the centre contains the following clauses:
• The user should not do or allow anything which may be or become a nuisance or annoyance to tenants of any neighbouring property.
• The hours of use are restricted to no later than 11 pm, with the use till midnight allowed on 12 days a year.
• No music or announcements from the centre should be audible outside the centre.
12. In 2019, the Ombudsman issued a public report against the Council. This service found the Council had not complied with the recommendations made by the Ombudsman during investigation of a previous complaint; the Council wrongly told Mr X that several proactive visits had been undertaken to the site; did not keep a record of legal advice it received; wrongly did not accept fault when it responded to Mr X’s complaints, and it did not undertake visits to the centre every two months during the summer of 2017 despite telling Mr X it would so.
13. The Council agreed a remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X including monitoring of five events at the centre over a six-month period. The Ombudsman was satisfied the Council conducted the monitoring and had completed all aspects of the remedy in May 2019.
14. In September 2019, Mr X contacted this service again. He said noise limiters installed by the centre to mitigate the noise were not being used and the Council said it had no authority to check they are being used. Mr X said the windows were open in the evenings. Mr X said environmental health officers visited the site but no action was taken afterwards. On other occasions, Mr X said offices took a minimum of one hour to get to the centre. Mr X said people party, smoke and drink in the centre’s car park.
15. The Council made a second and final stage response to Mr X’s complaint in September 2019. The Council explained its environmental health officers had responded to Mr X’s reports of noise from the community centre on several occasions between March and July 2019. On one of those occasions, an environmental health officer served a noise abatement notice having decided the level of noise from the community centre amounted to a noise nuisance. On other occasions, officers did not witness noise they judged to be a noise nuisance. However, they advised the centre reduce noise and provided advice to its operator on how to prevent further issues.
16. Mr X made further reports of disturbances from noise and other activities at the centre in October 2019. Mr X said there were cars hooting in the car park and pointing lights into his home; windows at the centre were open with noise from leather gloves hitting each other as well as shouting emanating from the hall; loud music was being played in the hall; an overgrown tree on the boundary between the centre and Mr X’s home had to be cut back; and new doors being installed at the community centre appeared lighter than the previous ones.
17. The Council decided not to investigate Mr X’s concerns. It said it could not continue to use its resources to investigate his complaints apart from the matter of the overgrown tree. It said it had not received complaints about disturbances from the centre from other residents having made enquiries in the past.
18. The Council understood Mr X found it difficult to live with and so offered Mr X the options of either a management transfer provided he could show his home affected his health or mutual exchange.

Finding

19. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate steps to investigate Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance between March and July 2019. The evidence I have seen shows the Council’s officers made reactive as well as proactive visits to the centre in order to assess the noise levels from the site.
20. I note Mr X’s grounds of complaint suggesting noise limiters at the centre were not being used and windows at the centre were left open in the evenings. In terms of action on a potential breach of the lease, the Council had previously explained to the Ombudsman when responding to previous complaints, that its legal advice was that noise from the centre had to be shown to have exceeded statutory levels on a regular basis.
21. Because the lease states noise only needs to be audible outside the premises for a breach of the lease to have occurred I can understand why Mr X feels aggrieved that the Council says the noise has to be a statutory noise nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act to justify action under the management of the lease.
22. However, the standard of evidence the Council seeks before any management action under the lease terms is based on its interpretation of the lease. I am satisfied that interpretation is not subject to fault given the level of noise monitoring the Ombudsman sought from the Council as part of the remedy for Mr X’s previous complaint. This view is reinforced by the monitoring the Council undertook between March and September 2019.
23. I note the Council’s conclusion in October 2019 that it would not pursue Mr X’s complaints about activities from the centre any further and the offer of a management transfer provided Mr X has evidence his home has a detrimental impact on his health.
24. Given the long standing nature of Mr X’s concerns about the centre and his complaints, the Council may wish to consider a discretionary management transfer without the need for Mr X to provide such evidence.
25. Despite its October 2019 conclusion, I find the Council is still required to investigate complaints of noise nuisance when made in accordance with its duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This means Mr X can make new complaints about noise matters to the Council. However, the new complaints should involve new occurrences or incidents of noise rather than rehearse previous complaints or matters which were previously investigated by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised here.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman