Summary: Ms B complained that the Council took insufficient action to respond to complaints of noise nuisance following the conclusion of a previous complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she was still being disturbed by noise from her neighbour’s property. We are unable to find fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that Westminster City Council (the Council) took insufficient action to respond to her complaints of noise nuisance since the conclusion of her previous Ombudsman complaint. She said that she was still disturbed by noise from her neighbour’s water pump/pipes.

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. Ms 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 statutory nuisance will need to be witnessed by the Environmental Health Officer and they will come to an independent judgement. The process of determining what level of noise constitutes a nuisance can be quite subjective. the noise, its length, timing and location may be taken into consideration when deciding whether a nuisance has occurred.
6. If an officer decides a statutory nuisance is happening, or will happen in the future, councils must serve an abatement notice. This requires whoever is responsible to stop or restrict the noise. If someone does not comply with an abatement notice they can be prosecuted and fined

What happened

7. Ms B made a previous complaint to the Ombudsman about noise nuisance: she said that defective pipes in a neighbouring flat were causing the problem. We upheld the complaint and as part of the remedy to put matters right, the Council agreed to continue to take action to confirm the source of the noise at Ms B’s property urgently.
8. The Council carried out a full On/Off test of all the water-supplying equipment in all the flats in the block to check for defective pipes. It also checked the water tank pump in the loft. No defects were found. It sent details of the test to us and we were satisfied that the action taken met our recommendation.
9. Ms B emailed the Council in late February 2020 to complain that the noise was still continuing and the Council had not tested the water for a long enough period of time. She made a formal complaint at the end of March 2020 saying that the Council had not properly investigated the source of the noise and that an officer (Officer Z) had acted inappropriately and unreasonably by contacting her to explain what the Council had done.
10. Officer Z replied on 6 April 2020 saying that the Ombudsman was satisfied with the action the Council had taken. He had contacted Ms B to explain what the Council had done to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations. He met with her in the presence of another officer at a venue of her choosing, to hand over the payment cheque. The officers then went to the communal parts of the block of flats at Ms B’s request for 1.5 hours but did not witness any noise nuisance. He considered the meeting was amicable and denied acting inappropriately or receiving gifts from the neighbours.
11. Ms B made a further complaint on saying that it was wrong for Officer Z to have replied to the complaint. She requested disciplinary action be taken against him.
12. Officer Z’s manager replied to Ms B’s complaint. They had spoken to Officer Z, and the second officer who also attended the meeting with Ms B, and examined the case records. They found no evidence to substantiate Ms B’s complaint against Officer Z.
13. Ms B escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process accusing Officer Z of misconduct in public office and said the Council had still not found the source of the noise. The Council replied to Ms B saying that it could not investigate her complaint about Officer Z’s conduct as personnel issues fell outside the complaints process. In respect of the noise, it said the Ombudsman was satisfied with the action the Council took. It said she could make complaints about new incidents to the noise team.
14. The Council said that Ms B continued to make complaints of noise nuisance from the neighbouring flat: 88 since 1 January 2020 and no noise nuisance had been witnessed by any officer attending the address. It said that its practice changed between the end of March and June 2020 due to the national lockdown, as officers were no longer able to enter premises and could only witness from the outside of premises. It said Ms B submitted 65 cases of water pipe noises between 6 April and 25 June 2020, but officers found no evidence of noise.
15. In June 2020 the Council wrote to Ms B about a number of issues including the noise nuisance. It said Ms B had submitted over 150 separate complaints of noise nuisance since January 2020 and on a number of occasions staff recorded Ms B acting in an aggressive manner or hanging up the phone. It said no officer had witnessed any statutory nuisance from her property since August 2018 and it would no longer investigate her complaints individually. It suggested she keep a record of disturbances on a monthly basis and sent her some diary sheets. It also advised her that she could take private action if she wished.
16. Ms B then complained to us.
17. In response to my enquiries the Council said that an officer visited Ms B’s property in September 2020, in error. The officer entered the common parts and Ms B’s flat but did not hear any noise, beyond water running through pipes which was not a statutory nuisance.

Analysis

18. We were satisfied that the Council had taken appropriate action to investigate the source of the noise, following Ms B’s previous complaint. The Council did not witness any further noise and so it could not take any further action.
19. Since then, Ms B has continued to make frequent complaints about noise. The Council has visited the premises but not found any evidence of noise nuisance. After six months and given the frequency of the reports and the lack of evidence to support them, the Council decided not to investigate the issue any further. I cannot find fault with its decision. The decision was supported by the accidental visit in September 2020 when the Council visited Ms B’s flat and the common parts of the building but did not witness any noise nuisance. The Council also invited Ms B to submit any further evidence on a monthly basis in the form of diary sheets but she has not done so.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman