Summary: Miss X complains that the Council has failed to act on her reports of nuisance and anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. She also complains that the Council has unfairly restricted her contact with officers. Miss X says she feels mentally abused by the Council and her neighbours, distressed, and traumatised. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains that the Council has failed to act on her reports of nuisance and anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. She also complains that the Council has unfairly restricted her contact with officers.
2. Miss X says she feels mentally abused by the Council and her neighbours, and says the odour makes her feel ill and means her house smells. She says this has made her feel distressed and traumatised.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
5. I considered the relevant legislation and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Noise complaints

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, if noise causes a statutory nuisance, authorities are required to take action to ‘abate’ (reduce) such nuisance. To be a statutory nuisance, the law says the noise must be unreasonable and must substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home, or must injure, or be likely to injure, health.
7. Councils are required to investigate complaints of noise nuisance. A council will gather evidence to establish whether or not the noise is causing a statutory nuisance. If it finds the noise is a statutory nuisance it will serve a noise abatement notice requiring the nuisance to be stopped. Failure to comply with an abatement notice can result in court action and a fine.
8. There is no fixed point at which noise becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on professional environmental health officers to gather and assess evidence of noise and decide if a statutory nuisance exists. In assessing the noise, officers will take account of several factors such as what is causing the noise, the local area, time of day, and frequency and duration of the noise.
9. Councils must also consider how the noise affects the average person, who may not share the specific circumstances of the complainant. In practice, this means councils have some discretion deciding whether noise is a statutory nuisance. The primary aim of any action is to modify the behaviour of the perpetrator. However, a council cannot take action against the perpetrators of noise without robust evidence.
10. Councils’ procedures for dealing with noise complaints typically include contact with both parties, use of diary sheets, officer visits, and/or use of recording equipment. If people return diary sheets the case officer will investigate, unless the sheets show there is unlikely to be a nuisance. Further investigation normally includes letters to both parties but may be ‘case specific’. Councils will close a case if further ‘reasonable investigation’ does not show a statutory nuisance exists.
11. This Council’s noise complaints policy says complainants should complete diary sheets for a period of seven to 14 days then return them to the case officer for assessment. It says if diary sheets are not returned within the agreed time, further action will not be possible, and the complaint will be closed. The policy also says that if the Council finds no statutory nuisance, the case will be closed.

Anti-social behaviour

12. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 places a general duty on councils to take action to combat anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is behaviour that can cause harassment, alarm, or distress, or can cause nuisance or annoyance in relation to a person’s occupation of their home. Some examples of anti-social behaviour are graffiti, vandalism, threats, nuisance neighbours, littering, and drug use.
13. Councils will usually have a team to respond to and investigate complaints about anti-social behaviour, liaising with the police and other agencies, as necessary.
14. Councils can discharge their duties in a variety of ways, including using powers under certain specific legislation, like the Environmental Health Act when it comes to noise complaints (see above). Councils can also use informal intervention, such as mediation or advice.

Dog faeces

15. Councils can issue Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) for problems in public spaces, including the control of dogs. PSPOs can make it an offence if dog owners:
• do not clean up after their dogs; or,
• allow their dogs to enter particular places that have a PSPO, like playgrounds or parks.
16. Councils have no powers when it comes to dog faeces on private land, when that land is not accessible to the public.

Council policy on restricting contact

17. The Council has an Unreasonable Customer policy. This says, “unreasonable and persistent complainants are those complainants who, because of the nature and frequency of their contacts with an organisation, hinder the organisation’s consideration of their or other people’s complaints”.
18. The policy says this includes making excessive demands on time and staff resources, unacceptable behaviour (aggressive, abusive, or threatening behaviour), and causing distress to staff (using hostile, abusive, condescending, sarcastic or offensive language intended to belittle or intimidate).
19. The policy says what action it will take before deciding to apply the policy to restrict a customer’s contact with the Council.
20. The policy says it can restrict a customer’s contact with the Council in several ways, including limiting a customer to one method of contact. A decision to restrict contact must be made by the head of service.
21. Once this decision has been made, the decision-maker will write to the customer to say what action is being taken and why, what it means for their future contacts with the Council, how they can contact the Council about new issues, how long the restrictions last, and when the decision will be reviewed.
22. The policy says the Council will not ignore new complaints from someone classified as unreasonable.

What happened

23. Miss X has a history of reporting nuisance from her neighbours.
24. In January 2020, Miss X complained to the Council about noise from her neighbours. The Council sent her diary sheets to complete and return, which she did.
25. In February, the Council spoke to Miss X about a report she had made about dog faeces in her neighbour’s garden.
26. Later that month, Miss X called the Council about her noise diary sheets. Council records show that Miss X was angry and abusive on the phone. The officer was not able to ask about the noise or the diary sheets because of Miss X’s behaviour on the phone. The officer offered Miss X a meeting with two Council officers. Miss X did not take the Council up on this offer; instead, she continued to shout at the officer.
27. A few days later, the Council spoke to Miss X about her noise complaint. Miss X said she did not think the noise had got worse since the Council last investigated. The Council told Miss X it had contacted the housing association about the dog faeces.
28. A few days later, the Council spoke to Miss X. She reported a little bit of noise the previous night but nothing significant.
29. A few days later, the Council spoke to Miss X. She said the noise had improved. She also said the dog faeces was not affecting her.
30. In March, the Council left two voicemails for Miss X about her noise complaint. The Council closed the noise complaint because it did not hear back from Miss X.
31. In May, Miss X complained to the Council about dog faeces in her neighbour’s garden. A council officer visited the following day but could not see any dog faeces in the neighbour’s garden. The next day, the Council left Miss X a voicemail. The Council closed the case because it had no further contact from Miss X.
32. In June, Miss X called the Council. She complained about a chemical smell coming from her neighbour’s property. Miss X was unable to give the Council dates or times. Records say Miss X was irate, shouted at the officer, and made derisory comments.
33. Two days later, the Council sent Miss X diary sheets to complete and return.
34. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council about its lack of action regarding her reports of noise, dog faeces and odours from her neighbour.
35. The Council then spoke to Miss X about cannabis smells which she said came from her neighbour. She said she reported this to police. She said she was struggling to send the diary sheets by email. The Council said Miss X could send them in the post.
36. At the end of June, the Council sent its stage one response to Miss X’s complaint. It said Miss X had not provided any further information about the chemical smell. It said this smell appeared to be linked to drug use, and this was not clear at the time Miss X spoke to the officer. The Council said it could not help with this. It advised Miss X to report drug use to the police and the housing association.
37. The Council said it acted on Miss X’s most recent report of dog faeces and found no evidence of dog faeces. It said Miss X had made repeated complaints about the condition of the neighbour’s back garden. It said when it was appropriate, the Council had warned the neighbour about not cleaning faeces away. However, as there was no current evidence of dog faeces, there was nothing to resolve.
38. In July, the Council sent Miss X a letter restricting her contact with the Council. It explained that the Council had reviewed the corporate complaints Miss X had made in the last year, and the number of repeated complaints about her neighbour. It said it had also spoken to officers about Miss X’s communication with them.
39. The Council said there was a recurring and concerning pattern of behaviour from Miss X to officers. It said there were several examples where Miss X’s behaviour was unacceptable. It said the Council’s contact with Miss X was using a disproportionate amount of time, which could not continue.
40. The Council said it would only accept future complaints if they were made in writing to one of two named officers. It told Miss X not to call officers directly or via the contact centre. It said all written complaints must be supported with diary sheets, and all complaints submitted like this would be considered.
41. The Council said the restrictions would be in place for six months and then reviewed. It said it cannot help with the neighbour’s drug use and advised Miss X to call police.
42. A few days later, the Council spoke to Miss X. She said she had completed diary sheets and would return them that week.
43. At the end of July, Miss X complained again about dog faeces.
44. In August, Miss X sent the Council diary sheets for a period of three weeks in June. Miss X noted cannabis/smoke smells and three noise incidents. Miss X told the Council she felt restricting her contact was unfair.
45. Later in August, the Council sent Miss X a stage two response to her complaint. The Council again told Miss X it could not deal with cannabis smells as a statutory nuisance, and that she needed to go to police.
46. The Council said it was unclear if dog faeces remained a problem because Miss X had given no further information since June. It said there were no grounds to take this complaint further because the officer visited the day after Miss X reported it and saw no faeces. The Council acknowledged there had been a problem in the past, but said it took action at that time. It said any reports need to be supported with current information.
47. The Council said Miss X reported noise from the neighbour but did not provide information it could consider in the context of a statutory noise nuisance.
48. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Reports of nuisance and anti-social behaviour

Noise

49. Miss X reported a noise nuisance in January 2020. The Council sent her diary sheets which she returned. The Council was then in regular contact with Miss X about this issue for two months. Miss X reported improvement. After the Council had no contact with Miss X on two occasions after this, it closed the case.
50. I find that this is in line with the Council’s policy. I cannot see that the Council could or should have done any more with the information Miss X provided. I note that Miss X did not report any further noise nuisance until June.
51. In June, Miss X reported another noise complaint. The Council sent diary sheets. Miss X did not return the forms until August. Despite the length of time taken to return the forms, the Council considered Miss X’s noise complaint.
52. These diary sheets reported nine incidents of nuisance over the month of June. Three of these were about noise.
53. The stage two complaint response gave the Council’s decision on this noise complaint. It said Miss X had not provided information that could be considered in the context of noise nuisance.
54. I agree with the Council. It would not be possible to determine a statutory noise nuisance from the information Miss X provided. I find that the Council considered Miss X’s noise complaint as it should have done, in line with its policy.
55. Miss X complains that the Council failed to act on her reports of noise nuisance. I do not agree. I find that the Council investigated Miss X’s complaints as it should have, and in line with its policy. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Smells

56. Miss X has reported cannabis smells, smoke smells, and chemical/toxic smells coming from her neighbour.
57. The Council has repeatedly told Miss X that cannabis smells are not something that can be considered a statutory nuisance. It has told Miss X to report it to police and the housing association.
58. Miss X says she has done this, but the police have not acted. I do not find that this means the Council has a role to play here. If Miss X has a complaint about police inaction, she should raise this with police.
59. I find that the Council has acted appropriately here by signposting Miss X to the right body to deal with the complaint she is making. For this reason, I do not find fault with the Council.
60. Regarding chemical/toxic smells, Miss X’s reports are vague. She reported a chemical smell to the Council in June but was unable to give any further details (dates and times). So, I find there was insufficient information for the Council to act at that stage.
61. The diary sheets Miss X submitted in August do not mention chemical smells.
62. The Council’s stage one response says it appears the chemical smells are related to drug use, which it already told Miss X it cannot act on.
63. I do not agree that the Council has failed to act on Miss X’s reports. I find the Council has acted appropriately. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Dog faeces

64. The Council spoke to Miss X about her reports of dog faeces in January 2020. In February, the Council said it had raised the issue with the housing association. Miss X also said in February that the issue was not affecting her.
65. Miss X then reported it again in May. An officer visited the next day and found no evidence to support Miss X’s report.
66. Miss X raised it again in July. The Council’s stage two response said it was unclear if it was still a problem because it had not received any more information from Miss X.
67. The Council told Miss X it had warned the neighbour, when appropriate, about not cleaning away faeces.
68. I do not find that the Council could or should have done more about Miss X’s reports. The Council has no duty to act on reports of dog faeces on private land. Councils only have the power to act in public spaces. Despite this, the Council warned the neighbour, which I find appropriate.
69. I find that the Council has taken appropriate and proportionate action about this issue, based on the information provided by Miss X. I do not agree that the Council has failed to act. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Restricted contact

70. Miss X complains that the Council has unfairly restricted her contact with officers.
71. The Council’s records show that Miss X’s behaviour has been confrontational, verbally abusive, and aggressive. They show Miss X has shouted and made accusations and derisory personal comments about officers. The Council considers that Miss X’s behaviour impacts on staff wellbeing and takes up a disproportionate amount of officers’ time.
72. The Council is entitled to limit customers’ contact if they meet certain criteria. In this case, I am satisfied that the Council’s decision to restrict Miss X’s contact is in line with its policy and is appropriate and proportionate to her behaviour.
73. I therefore find no fault with the Council for applying its policy.

Back to top

Final decision

74. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman