Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action regarding noise nuisance and wrongly closed his case. Mr X says he continues to suffer from excessive noise. The Council has accepted it wrongly closed the case and has apologised and taken action to prevent similar problems occurring. The Council is currently investigating the ongoing noise problems.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take action after he sent in noise nuisance diaries and wrongly closed his complaint.
2. Mr X says he continues to suffer noise nuisance as no action was taken.

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)
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. As part of the investigation, 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;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X contacted the Council in May 2019 complaining about noise from a neighbouring garage building. Mr X says his neighbour repairs rally cars at the garage and this causes a significant noise.
7. On receipt of Mr X’s complaint, the Council opened noise investigation. It contacted both Mr X and his neighbour. The letter to Mr X included diary sheets. The Council explained that the diary sheets should be completed detailing time and dates of the noise, the duration of the noise and how it affected the use and enjoyment of the property. The Council said the diary sheets should be returned after about six events or two weeks.
8. Mr X contacted the Council again in November 2019 saying he had lost the diary sheets. The Council sent out further diary sheets for Mr X to complete. Mr X returned them on 18 November and included photographs of the garage.
9. On 29 November an officer called Mr X but found the number provided did not work. Mr X rang the Council on 10 December. The Council checked it had the correct number for Mr X and was told it would be passed to the officer dealing with his case.
10. There was no further contact between Mr X and the case officer and so the case was closed on 6 May 2020.
11. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council in July 2020. In response the Council accepted it was at fault for not contacting Mr X after he telephoned in December 2019. It apologised and said this was not a deliberate act but an oversight. It said Mr X could submit a new complaint if he was still experiencing noise problems.
12. Mr X made a new noise complaint in 2021. He has provided diary sheets and the Council is investigating. Mr X has submitted noise app recordings and noise recording equipment has been installed at Mr X’s property. The Council will assess the recordings and decide if further action is required.

Analysis

13. The Council has accepted fault in this case. It should have contacted Mr X in December 2019 after he contacted it. As I have identified fault I have to consider how Mr X was affected.
14. The Council is now investigating the noise problem. This investigation is not yet completed and so the outcome is unknown. If a statutory nuisance is identified and further action taken, this will be based on the noise witnessed in 2021. It cannot be assumed that any investigation in 2019/20 would have reached the same conclusion.
15. I note that there are long periods of time when Mr X did not pursue this matter. I am aware that the neighbour had submitted a planning application to convert the garage building to a residential property. Mr X supported this application believing a change of use to residential would resolve the noise problems. For this reason, Mr X did not pursue the noise complaint while the planning application was under consideration. The planning application was refused and the car repairs continue. As a result, Mr X now wishes to pursue the noise complaint.
16. I am unable to say what the outcome would have been if the Council had taken the correct action in 2019/20. However, the failure to take action has left Mr X not knowing what would have happened if the matter had been pursued. When deciding whether to recommend a payment to recognise Mr X’s uncertainty, I have considered Mr X’s actions. Since Mr X first mad a noise complaint in May 2019, there have been periods of time when Mr X did not take action and did not pursue the issue. While I note Mr X’s reasons for this, I consider that despite the pending planning application, if the noise had been problematic throughout then Mr X would not have been inactive for so long. I am therefore not persuaded it is proportionate to recommend any further remedy in this case.
17. As well as the apology given to Mr X, the Council has taken action to ensure similar errors do not occur in the future including increasing staff withing the Environmental Health team, reviewing how cases are managed including in staff supervision sessions and the implementation of a new management information system. I am therefore satisfied with the action already taken by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has already taken action which provides an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman