Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to her noise nuisance reports and complaints against her neighbour. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to her noise nuisance reports and complaints against her neighbour. She says her neighbours shout and argue in the evenings and late at night. She says the noise has disrupted her family’s sleep and caused them stress.

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. 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. 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

5. I spoke with Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mrs X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory nuisance

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances.
9. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, the council must decide it:
• unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premise; and/or
• injures health or is likely to injure health.
10. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officer, generally an environmental health officer, to gather evidence. They may, for example, as the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
11. Once the evidence gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The council officer(s) will use their professional judgment to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.

What happened

12. In November 2019, Mrs X made a noise complaint to the Council about her neighbour. The Council asked Mrs X to record the noise using a noise recording app on her phone.
13. The Council explained it used the noise recording app to decide the frequency and extent of noise nuisance before the installation of noise monitoring equipment.
14. Mrs X submitted several recordings through the app between November 2019 and the beginning of January 2020. The Council considered these recordings and noted two recordings showed excessive noise. The Council said it considered the other recordings to be normal household noise. The Council said it had considered the time of day the recording was taken when it made this decision.
15. At the end of January 2020, the Council decided to install noise monitoring equipment in Mrs X’s property. The Council explained it did this as it considered some of the noise recorded was a concern.
16. The Council installed the noise monitoring equipment in Mrs X’s property for a week. The Council said the equipment made two recordings. The Council said the recordings showed the noise levels were acceptable. The Council also explained due to the high demand for the equipment, it only installed it for one to two weeks.
17. Mrs X said her neighbour was not in the house during that week and that was why the recording equipment had not picked up any noise.
18. The Council closed the case at the end of February 2020
19. Mrs X sent further recordings between March – October 2020. The Council provided evidence of its consideration of each recording and the reviewing officer’s analysis of the noise. The Council said none of the recordings submitted by Mrs X caused it concern. The Council said this was why it had not reinstalled noise monitoring equipment in Mrs X’s property.
20. The Council also sought advice from its legal team in June 2020. The Council provided all the evidence gathered so far but was advised there was insufficient evidence to meet the threshold for legal action.

Analysis

21. The Council has a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances. It is for the Council to decide how to investigate and to consider the evidence it gathers during its investigation. The Council must use its professional judgment to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
22. The evidence shows the Council did take steps to investigate Mrs X’s noise complaints. It asked Mrs X to submit recordings of the noise she witnessed. The evidence also shows the Council considered every recording submitted by Mrs X.
23. It is for the reviewing officer to decide whether the recording showed noise which was a concern. In this case, the evidence shows the Council officer did not consider most of the recordings showed excessive noise. This is their professional judgment and is merits.
24. The evidence shows the Council took further action by installing noise monitoring equipment when it was concerned by the noise reflected in some recordings. This was appropriate as this demonstrates the Council taking reasonable steps to investigate the Mrs X’s noise concerns.
25. The Council considered the two recordings made by the noise monitoring equipment. Again, it is for the Council to decide whether the recordings demonstrate excessive noise, or noise which it considers to be a statutory nuisance. In this case, the Council did not consider the noise recorded to be a statutory nuisance.
26. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make after consideration of the available evidence. Therefore, I cannot criticise the decision itself as it was made properly.
27. Mrs X said the Council did not install the equipment for long enough because her neighbours were not at home for the duration the equipment was installed. However, it is for the Council to decide how long to install the equipment for. The Council has provided its reasons for why it only installed equipment for one or two weeks. The Ombudsman cannot criticise or find fault with the Council for this.
28. The Council said it has considered whether to reinstall the noise monitoring equipment in Mrs X's property. However, it explained it did not consider it necessary as the recordings submitted by Mrs X do not show noise which it considered a concern. The Council is entitled to reach this decision after consideration of the evidence. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the decision itself.
29. Finally, there is evidence the Council has considered whether it could take further action against Mrs X’s neighbour. However, the advice received was that there was insufficient evidence to do so. Again, the Council was entitled to reach this decision after consideration of the available evidence. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision because it made its decision properly.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I find no fault with the Council’s actions in relation to Mrs X’s noise nuisance complaint. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman