Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to deal effectively with noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from her downstairs neighbour. We have found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms D complains the Council failed to deal effectively with noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from her downstairs neighbour. Ms D says this caused her disturbance for several months.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s handling of the alleged noise nuisance from September 2019 to December 2019. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Ms D about her complaint and considered the information she sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries, including a sound recording Ms D had made.
7. Ms D 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

The Council’s power to deal with noise nuisance

8. Certain matters, for example noise, can be a “statutory nuisance” if they are significant enough. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premise
• injure health or be likely to injure health
9. It is for councils to judge whether something amounts to a statutory nuisance. The law says councils must take reasonably practical steps to investigate complaints about issues that could be a statutory nuisance. To do this, officers may ask the person complaining of nuisance to complete and return diary sheets detailing the noise. Officers may also visit or set up recording equipment in the complainant’s home.
10. An environmental health officer must witness the statutory nuisance. The officer will come to an independent judgment whether a statutory nuisance exists, considering the type of nuisance, duration, intensity and location. When deciding this the officer should consider whether and how an ordinary person would be affected by the noise. If an officer decides a statutory nuisance is happening councils must serve an abatement notice. An abatement notice’s recipient can appeal to the magistrates’ court, so councils need strong evidence to decide there is a statutory nuisance.
11. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the noise complained about is causing a disturbance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the disturbance or suggest mediation.
12. Councils do not have a duty to respond to every report of noise nuisance as it occurs. The Council’s noise complaints procedure says it will not visit when a noise nuisance is first reported, but instead will write to the source to give them an opportunity to reduce the noise. If the noise continues the Council will investigate further.
13. The Council classifies noise reports into three categories depending on the Council’s ability to obtain evidence. Category C relates to intermittent, short duration (i.e. less than half an hour) noise at random intervals, e.g. slamming doors, anti-social behaviour, shouting, etc, where the Council considers it will not be able to obtain adequate evidence by witnessing the noise. In these cases, the Council will ask the person to complete diary sheets or it may install recording equipment. If the complainant has produced diary sheets but the service has been unable to corroborate the noise, the case may be closed. If the Council decides to visit, it will advise the complainant of an approximate time.

What happened

14. Ms D is a council tenant. She moved into the property on 21 September 2019. Two days later she reported to the Council that her neighbour, another council tenant, was causing a nuisance by loudly banging doors all day. Ms D emailed the Council several times over the next few days reporting she was being harassed by the neighbour. She said the noise was incessant and was disturbing her.
15. The Council wrote to Ms D and the neighbour on 2 October 2019 with information about its noise nuisance investigation procedure. This included information about the Council’s out of hours noise service, although this service had recently been reduced to four days per week. It asked the neighbour to take steps to reduce any noise.
16. Ms D remained dissatisfied; she said the noise was continuing and there had been no out of hours service during the night. She asked for an officer to visit but no officer was available.
17. The Council’s housing team spoke to Ms D on 10 October. Ms D described her neighbours as “hostile, aggressive” and said that she wanted them to be evicted. The Council says she made racist comments about the neighbours. The officer advised Ms D that daytime domestic noise may not be considered a statutory nuisance and that the Council’s anti-social behaviour team were aware of her complaints.
18. Ms D contacted the Council on numerous occasions between 8 October 2019 and 25 October 2019 to complain about noise disturbance and harassment by her neighbours. She also sent in diary sheets for 8 and 9 October 2019 and a recording of the noise. She asked the Council to visit four times. She also reported four incidents by the neighbour to the police, which took no further action. She sent in information from her GP which expressed concerns about the impact of the situation on her mental health.
19. Ms D complained on 19 October 2019 that the Council had not visited to witness the nuisance. The Council wrote to Ms D on 24 October 2019 suggesting a meeting at the Council’s offices. The letter also said the Council would not accept the use of foul language towards staff or racist comments. Ms D declined the meeting.
20. The Council replied to Ms D’s complaint and said the housing officer and environmental health officer would visit Ms F’s property on 13 November. Ms D asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaint process. She said the neighbour continued to be hostile and her property had been damaged.
21. The neighbour told the Council he had done all he could to reduce noise from within his flat, including sticking pads on the inside of cupboard doors and not watching TV at night.
22. The Council visited Ms D on 13 November 2019. It says the visit had to be cut short due to Ms D verbally abusing the officers. Ms D sent in a further recording. She also said the neighbour had urinated outside her flat and damaged her door.
23. The Council told Ms D it would arrange three visits to witness the noise. It proposed to visit on the afternoon of Sunday 17 November. Ms D did not confirm this visit so it was cancelled. She said the noise was mostly in the evenings. The Council spoke to Ms D on 21 November to arrange more visits. Ms D was verbally abusive to the officer so the call was ended.
24. On 22 November 2019 the neighbour contacted the police; he said Ms D had been shouting and harassing them.
25. The Council replied to Ms D’s complaint. It said no noise nuisance had been witnessed and her recording was inconclusive and could not be used as evidence. It had spoken to the police and Ms D's neighbour and had no evidence which supported Ms D's claims that her neighbours held extremist views. Ms D asked for her complaint to be escalated to the final stage.
26. The Council emailed Ms D on 25 November with details of visits times. It then attempted to visit on 28 November, but Ms D swore at the officers and slammed the door. The next day officers visited the property at 8pm. Ms D allowed them in, no statutory noise nuisance was witnessed. The Council made the third visit on 1 December 2019 at 10pm. There was no answer.
27. The Council wrote to Ms D on 6 December 2019 to say it would not investigate the noise complaints any further. It sent its final complaint response on 19 December 2019. This said it would no longer be investigating further complaints from her of alleged noise nuisance.
28. Ms D complained to the Ombudsman in March 2020. She said the Council had initially refused to visit to assess the noise and when it had visited, it was too late. The neighbour continued to make loud, banging noises, including banging on her ceiling, and cause her nuisance.
29. Ms D also complained to the Housing Ombudsman, which investigated the Council’s response as landlord to the reports of anti-social behaviour.
30. The length of our investigation was affected by the coronavirus pandemic and the Council’s request for more time to respond to our enquiries due to workload pressures on its environmental health team.

My findings

31. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if something is a statutory nuisance. Deciding that something does, or does not, constitute a statutory nuisance is a matter of professional judgment for an appropriately-trained council officer. My role is to consider whether the Council properly reached its decisions there was no statutory nuisance and to close its investigation.
32. On review of the information provided I am satisfied the Council took steps to investigate Ms D’s noise complaints in line with its policy and the law. The Council contacted the neighbour, sent diary sheets to Ms D, listened to Ms D’s recording and visited Ms D’s home. The officer did not witness evidence of statutory noise nuisance.
33. The Council closed the case after it attempted to visit Ms D’s property three times, as it decided it was unable to find sufficient evidence of a nuisance. This is in line with its policy.
34. It is for the Council to consider the information and evidence and reach its own judgment on whether the noise complained of amounts to a statutory nuisance. The Council has explained why it considers the noise did not amount to a nuisance. I appreciate Ms D disagrees, however I am satisfied the Council has properly considered the issue, before concluding it was not a statutory nuisance and that acted in line with its policy and the law. I therefore find no fault and cannot criticise its decisions.
35. I am aware Ms D has continued to report noise nuisance and problems with her property following the Council’s final complaint response; she wishes to be re-housed. However, I cannot investigate ongoing issues Ms D has with her neighbour, nor can I decide Ms D should be re-housed.

Back to top

Final decision

36. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

37. Ms D also alleged deliberate anti-social behaviour by her neighbour and complained that the Council did not deal properly with that. The neighbour is a Council tenant. The Council’s management of alleged anti-social behaviour by its tenants is a matter concerning the management of social housing. So I cannot consider it as the law says we cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman