Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s actions in restricting his contact over noise issues with his neighbour. We do not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that East Staffordshire Council (the Council) acted unreasonably in implementing a six-month ban on him contacting the Council about noise or enforcement issues. This has caused him distress and exacerbated the difficult situation between Mr B and his neighbour.

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. 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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. 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

Statutory nuisance

5. Councils can consider complaints about ‘statutory nuisance’ as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. For the problem complained about it must be judged to ‘unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises’ or ‘injure health or be likely to injure health’. Generally, the noise, its length, timing and location may be taken into consideration when deciding whether a nuisance has occurred.

What happened

6. Mr B has made complaints, to the Council and to us, for a number of years about noise from his neighbours. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions in any of these matters.
7. In June 2017 the Council banned Mr B from communicating with the Council about noise and enforcement issues for six months. In January 2018 it extended the ban due to contact from Mr B. On 22 March 2018 it agreed to accept complaints but to one email address only and with evidence (noise recordings or diary sheets). If no evidence was provided the Council would not engage with Mr B on that specific matter. It said the agreement would be reviewed every six months.
8. In January 2020, the agreement was still in place. Mr B sent an email to the designated address complaining about dog barking for 30 minutes.
9. Later the same day he made a formal complaint via the Council’s website. In the evening he sent an email to the chief executive, complaining about a lack of response.
10. A few days later Mr B sent a second email complaining of banging on his neighbour’s driveway at 7am which disturbed him.
11. The Council sent a letter the same day saying Mr B had broken the terms of the agreement, so it was implementing a six-month ban on communication from Mr B regarding noise/enforcement issues. In its letter it said:

Since this agreement has been in place, your contact with the Council has been monitored. On several occasions you have contacted Officers direct via email, including the Chief Executive. In one of your more recent emails, you have expected a response from the Environmental Health Department within the same working day. The Council has concluded that your communications have now become unreasonable.

12. Mr B sent an email saying he had been advised to request a review by our office. The Council asked for reasons for a review and Mr B replied saying that he had waited four days before he made a complaint.
13. On 3 February 2020 the Council sent a review response upholding the ban, referring to the two emails sent in January.
14. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman.
15. In its response to my enquiries the Council said:

Despite the agreement on his contact with the Council on the subjects of noise and enforcement, Mr B had not used the agreed method of contacting the Council, in addition Mr B expected a response to his correspondence within the same day, despite the arrangement on contact with the Council (namely, if no evidence was forthcoming or if the Council was unable to identify a statutory nuisance, then it would not enter into contact on that matter).

16. In July 2020 the Council lifted the ban but said the agreed restrictions would remain in place and would be reviewed in three months.
17. Mr B made a further complaint about early morning noise at the end of July 2020. The Council asked for further details. He complained again at the beginning of October about noise from building work. The Council said it could not take action on the basis of the information provided as it did not consider it was unreasonable but to let the Council know if it was still continuing the following week.

Analysis

18. I cannot find fault with the actions the Council took in respect of limiting Mr B’s communication with the Council. Mr B was aware of the terms of the communication agreement as it had been in place for several years. He sent emails in contravention of this and so the Council was entitled to implement the ban again.
19. I also do not consider Mr B has been caused a significant injustice by not being able to make any further complaints. He has been making complaints for at least 3 years about the same issues. The Council has considered them in the context of the relevant legislation. It has explained why it will not be taking any action, generally because the noise complained about does not amount to a statutory nuisance. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions on any of the occasions he has complained to us since 2018 and the issues he raised more recently are no different.
20. I understand Mr B has tried to raise this issue with his housing office; that may be a more productive route for resolution.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman