Somerset West and Taunton Council (19 017 932)

Category : Environment and regulation > Noise

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 09 Sep 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council mismanaged Miss B’s expectations when she raised a noise nuisance complaint. An officer spoke to Miss B in a way which she found upsetting. The Council has apologised to Miss B for the impact its actions had on her and undertook to provide training to its officers on these issues. The Council has taken appropriate action to acknowledge the impact of its fault on Miss B and to improve future service. The Ombudsman makes no further recommendations.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I will call Miss B, says the Council acted on her noise complaint following an initial telephone call. Miss B sent in diary sheets documenting the noise nuisance, and then received a telephone call from the Council saying it could do nothing further, and that she had given contradictory information in her initial call and diary sheets. Miss B feels the Council has backtracked on what it agreed to do. Miss B says the way the Council handled the matter did not acknowledge her suffering from the nuisance; the Council has added to her stress, and caused her time and trouble escalating the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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 considered:
    • Information provided by Miss B and the Council.
    • The Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  2. Miss 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

Relevant legislation

  1. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows councils to take formal enforcement action if a ‘statutory nuisance’ is taking place. For a noise to count as 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.
  2. There is no requirement in law for councils to take prescribed steps to investigate reports of statutory nuisance. Officers have wide discretion to use their professional judgement in deciding how to investigate the nuisance complained about.

What happened

  1. Between July and August 2019, Miss B was disturbed by noise from a neighbouring property. Miss B says she contacted her neighbour as well as the relevant landlord / managing agent about her concerns. The landlord asked the managing agent to write to Miss B’s neighbour.
  2. Because things did not improve, Miss B contacted the Council in August 2019. She submitted a formal noise nuisance complaint in September 2019. Miss B says she was led to believe the Council would deal with the noise she had reported. The Council sent Miss B diary sheets to complete and wrote to her neighbour to say it had received a noise nuisance complaint. Miss B returned the diary sheets to the Council at the beginning of November. These referred to “banging”, “bashing” and doors being slammed. These regularly disturbed Miss B and often woke her up at night.
  3. A council officer then called Miss B to say it would be taking no further action as the noise did not constitute a statutory nuisance.
  4. Miss B complained to the Council about the decision to take no further action. She was unhappy the officer she had spoken to had said the Council does not deal with ‘household banging’ and that the noise was down to poor insulation – something Miss B disagrees with. Miss B was also unhappy the Council officer had said Miss B had provided inconsistent information to the Council about the noise from her neighbour.
  5. The Council responded and apologised the initial officer had given a false impression about the types of nuisance that can be investigated and enforced. The Council undertook to complete training with its officers on this issue. On the point of inconsistent information, the Council said initially Miss B reported shouting and screaming but this was not noted on her diary sheets. The Council apologised for the way the telephone conversation with an officer made Miss B feel, the Council undertook to raise telephone manner, and providing a clear explanation of investigations, as a training requirement with the case officer.

Was there fault causing injustice?

  1. The initial officer could have given guidance that the types of nuisance Miss B was reporting would not be a statutory nuisance, and that potentially there was not a lot to be gained by investigating the issues. By not doing so they raised Miss B’s expectations about what would happen. However, the fact the Council sent a letter to Miss B’s neighbour raises the neighbour’s awareness to the impact they are having on those around them. Also, the fact the Council did gather Miss B’s evidence means it has given full consideration as to whether the issues are a statutory nuisance rather than dismissing them at the early stage. The Council has apologised to Miss B that the officer gave her a false impression; that is sufficient action to recognise the impact on Miss B. The Council has undertaken to provide training to relevant staff; this is sufficient action to improve future practice.
  2. I have seen no evidence that Miss B initially reported shouting and screaming. The initial report I have seen refers to doors and cupboards banging, which is consistent with the diary sheets she sent in.
  3. There is not a recording of the telephone conversation which Miss B complains about. I have seen a case recording of what was discussed, but that does not highlight the tone of the conversation or exactly what the officer said. The Council has apologised to Miss B for how the conversation made her feel and undertook to complete relevant training with the officer; this is sufficient action to acknowledge the impact on Miss B and improve future practice.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I am satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to address its errors. It has apologised and undertaken to complete training with the relevant staff members. I have completed my investigation on the basis I cannot add to what the Council has already done.

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