Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr D’s complaint against the Council about its investigation of his noise nuisance reports against his upstairs neighbour. It properly considered the evidence before deciding there was no statutory nuisance. It contacted the neighbour, installed noise monitoring equipment, considered the results, and considered Mr D’s diary logs. It also investigated his claim of poor insulation between the properties.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about the Council’s investigation of his reports of his neighbour causing him a noise nuisance; as a result, he is regularly disturbed which is affecting his ability to work because of sleep deprivation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information provided by Mr D, the notes I made of the telephone conversation we had, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I did not send a complete copy. This is because some of the information contains details about third parties which needs to remain confidential. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr D and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr D has lived in his flat for more than a year. Above him lives a tenant and her partner. The problem is Mr D can hear every noise from the flat above which he accepts includes daily normal activities. He believes the insulation between the 2 properties is poor. Initially, the neighbours made noise until the early hours of the morning which sounded as if they were moving items round the flat.

Noise nuisance

7. Mr D kept noise logs for the Council for more than a year and has now given up doing so because it took no action against the neighbour. He complains the Council warned the neighbour of its intention to install noise monitoring equipment which meant she changed her behaviour.
8. The Council explained Mr D contacted it about noise in November 2019. Officers asked him to complete noise logs which he returned the following month. The noise he reported included loud thumping noises throughout the day. Mr D told officers he did not consider the neighbour was acting unreasonably, but believed the problem was poor sound insulation between the 2 properties.
9. The Council carried out monitoring on 2 separate occasions which found extremely low levels of noise, well below those considered a statutory nuisance and within night time levels considered acceptable by the World Health Organisation. The low levels of noise found reinforced the Council’s view the insulation between the properties was not a problem. While the Council accepts Mr D has his own health problems, which might mean he is more sensitive to noise, it can only consider the impact the noise would have on a person without such sensitivities.
10. The evidence I have seen includes:

• Noise logs for October and November 2019 reporting ‘thumping and banging’, washing machine, and footsteps mainly in the early hours of the morning lasting between 5 minutes to an hour;
• A report by Mr D sent in February 2020 about the lack of action of continuing noise from his neighbour. He also confirmed he would like the Council to carry out noise monitoring. The Council agreed;
• An email from Mr D reporting noise beyond 11pm in April. The Council told him it had contacted the neighbour but could not visit because of national Covid-19 restrictions;
• In June, the officer said she would contact the neighbour after his latest report of his neighbour’s thumping footsteps and creaking floorboards but could not visit because of Covid-19 restrictions;
• Noise monitoring equipment was installed in July;
• In September, the Council collected the noise monitoring equipment. Later the same month, it confirmed there was no statutory nuisance on the evidence, and it would take no further action;
• In October, the Council again confirmed there was no statutory nuisance evidence from the monitoring equipment; and
• Noise graphs prepared by the officer showing the levels of noise recorded before, during, and after Mr D triggered the recording. These show recorded trigger levels of up to a maximum of 55 dB (decibel) down to about 35 dB. The graphs show the decibel level recorded of Mr D breathing at about 25-30 dBs.

Analysis

11. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because I am satisfied the Council investigated Mr D’s reports of noise nuisance. Officers contacted the neighbour, installed noise monitoring equipment, considered the results, and decided it did not show evidence of a statutory nuisance.
12. The noise graphs of the recording results show very low levels of noise. Levels of 55 dB, for example, would include a conversation at home and a conversation in a restaurant or office. The evidence, therefore, was simply not there for officers to make a finding of the neighbours causing a statutory nuisance. The Ombudsman may not challenge a properly taken decision by the Council.

Insulation

13. When he first reported his neighbour, Mr D told the Council he believed the noise problem was because of a failure to build the properties properly with adequate noise insulation. The environmental health officer told Mr D she would contact the building control team about the construction of the properties and their signing off for building control purposes.
14. Mr D also contacted his landlord and asked for the noise testing evidence done for the 2 properties when built. This information was sent to the Council but, it could not send Mr D a copy. The officer told Mr D the landlord’s evidence showed the properties passed the sound insulation tests done in line with industry guidance.
15. The environmental health officer consulted the firm who certified the property and the Council’s own building control team. They confirmed the property met the required standard.
16. In response to my enquiries, the Council sent me a copy of the Measurement of Sound Insulation surveys carried out for the entire development which includes Mr D’s property. This shows all the properties passed the required sound value. It showed the construction details of the separating walls and floors were not provided by the developer.

Analysis

17. I found no fault on this complaint because I am satisfied the Council took his concerns about poor insulation between the 2 properties seriously. After investigating it, the Council concluded there was no evidence of poor insulation between the 2 properties. The environmental health officer contacted the Council’s building control team who confirmed there was no problem with the survey results which covered the flat Mr D lives in.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I found no fault on Mr D’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman