Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour for a statutory noise nuisance. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint. He has not found evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council has failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour for a noise nuisance. She also wants the Council to install a digital noise recorder.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 information provided by Ms D and asked the Council questions. I have examined the Council’s case papers.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 21 June 2020 Ms D reported loud music from a neighbouring property to the Council. She made a further report a few days later and Community Wardens (Wardens) attended but did not witness a nuisance. On the same day the Council contacted the Police to discuss the case. On 26 June Wardens visited the site and witnessed noise at “subjective level two and three” which meant there was some noise at a level that would be statutory noise nuisance if it was regular or prolonged. After further reports from Ms D and visits by the Wardens the Council met the Police at the end of the month to discuss the case because there were issues the Police were aware of.
7. In July Ms D reported seven incidents to the Council and Wardens attended each time. They witnessed noise at level three on one occasion. As a result, the Council issued a Community Protection Warning Notice to the neighbour for excessive noise incidents. On 20 July the Council spoke to Ms D and explained it could only progress enforcement action if there was sufficient evidence. It could not act based on Ms D’s recollections. It asked Ms D to complete the noise logs she had been given. Ms D asked for details of warnings given to her neighbour and the Council explained it could not provide confidential third party data. On 22 July the Council emailed Ms D reminding her to record incidents on the log sheet. On 27 July Ms D told the Council her neighbour was harassing her partner. Two days later Ms D told the Council it should prosecute the neighbour. The Council reiterated it needed evidence to progress the case.
8. On 4 August Ms D told the Council her neighbour was deliberately banging a door repeatedly to disturb her. Ms D made eight reports about music that month and Wardens attended but did not witness any incidents. At the end of the month the Council emailed Ms D. It had received recordings she made. These could not be used in any court action as they were not of evidential quality. Instead she should complete the noise log as previously requested. The Council also said it would not attend reports of doors banging as that was not a statutory noise nuisance. In September Ms D made three noise reports, again Wardens attended each time but not witness a nuisance.
9. In October Ms D complained to the Council about a lack of action. She also emailed the Council about alleged harassment and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour. Later that month the Council spoke to Ms D’s Councillor and advised it was unable to fit a digital recorder at the property to evidence noise due to covid-19 restrictions. On 22 October the Council wrote to Ms D advising it was liaising with the Police and seeking legal advice on how to proceed.
10. In November Ms D emailed the Council five times reporting door banging and harassment. The Council advised her it would not be investigating the door banging. Legal advice to the Council said that as the Police had also served the neighbour with a Community Protection Warning Notice it was not appropriate for the Council to pursue the same action. The case was about harassment (with music being used as a harassment tool) rather than a statutory noise nuisance. This was, therefore, a matter primarily for the Police to take forward. On 12 November the Council spoke to Ms D and explained its decision and the Police were investigating the harassment allegations. The next day the Police also confirmed the position to Ms D.
11. From the end of November to January 2021 Ms D made at least 11 reports of noise nuisance. The Wardens attended each incident but did not witness any loud music.

What should have happened

12. The Council investigates reports of statutory noise nuisance. On receipt of a complaint about noise it will write to the alleged perpetrator and to the complainant. It asks the complainant to fill out noise log sheets and return them. The log sheets allow Officers to see if there is likely to be a statutory noise nuisance. If there are grounds to continue investigating the Council will try to witness the nuisance. This can be done via a digital recorder installed in the complainant’s home or by visits from Wardens. Wardens assess the noise levels on site. They are rated as “subjective level” one to five. One is the lowest level of noise and five is the highest. Noise rated at level three to five would constitute a potential statutory noise nuisance if prolonged or regularly repeated.
13. Due to covid-19 restrictions the Council had to introduce new measure in March 2020 which remain in place. This prevented Officers and Wardens from entering a residence, or being able to install digital recorders, to comply with social distancing guidance. However, Wardens can still assess whether there is a noise nuisance by standing at the front and rear of a property.
14. If there is evidence of a statutory noise nuisance the Council can serve a Community Protection Warning Notice on the perpetrator. If there is then evidence of a statutory noise nuisance continuing the Council has the option of pursuing the case to court. The Council will not proceed to court unless it has its own evidence of a statutory nuisance. It cannot use recordings made by a complainant as they are not of an evidential quality.
15. If the evidence shows the noise is actually part of a harassment/ anti-social behaviour case the Council will liaise with the Police. Where the Police has already started enforcement action the Council will not usually duplicate that process. If it decides a case is primarily for the Police, it will advise the complainant.

Was there fault by the Council

16. Ms D says the Council should have installed a digital recorder in her home. There is no evidence of fault. The Council had to adapt its procedures in 2020 due to the unprecedented lockdown and covid-19 restrictions. This meant it was unable to install recorders. The Council has explained this to Ms D’s Councillor. Furthermore, the Council has continued to send Wardens to the property to witness a noise nuisance.
17. Ms D complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against her neighbour. I am satisfied from the evidence the Council has acted in line with its procedures. It has attended Ms D’s home at least 35 times in eight months. Wardens witnessed loud music in June and July and soon afterwards the Council issued a Community Protection Warning Notice. Since then, Wardens have not witnessed any further incidents that would be classed as a statutory nuisance. The Council has explained to Ms D that it could not progress enforcement action without sufficient evidence. It has also correctly advised Ms D that her personal recordings are not evidence that can be used in an enforcement case. In addition, as the case progressed in 2020 the Council and Police liaised about harassment reports made by Ms D, including that loud music was being used to harass her. Given the Police had also issued a Notice the Council concluded the case was primarily for the Police to investigate. It will be working with the Police to help progress the case. It explained its decision to Ms D in November.
18. In respect of the door banging Ms D reported to the Council there was no duty on the Council to investigate this matter as a noise nuisance. Officers correctly advised Ms D about this and what would be investigated.
19. I appreciate Ms D disagrees with the Council’s decisions and wants it to do more. However, the Ombudsman will not question the merits of decisions taken by the Council where there is no fault. In addition, I am satisfied the Council has adhered to its procedures and sought to progress the case reasonably within the restrictions imposed by covid-19.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman