Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns about noise and anti-social behaviour by her neighbours. She also said the Council’s officer communicated with her inappropriately. There was not enough evidence the Council properly considered Ms X’s evening noise complaint and there were delays in its complaints handling. This caused Ms X some limited distress and time and trouble. There was no fault on the other matters complained about. The Council accepted our recommendation of an apology and a financial remedy for Ms X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained the Council failed to properly investigate her reports about noise and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour. She also said the Council’s officer communicated with her inappropriately and handled her concerns poorly.
2. As a result, Ms X said she experienced distress from the Council’s delays, its poor communication, and its failure to take action against her neighbours. She also said she had time and trouble to get it to consider her complaint properly.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have considered the Council’s handling of Ms X’s noise and anti-social behaviour complaint from June 2020 to December 2020.
4. The final paragraph of this decision explained the parts of the complaint I have not considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Ms X’s complaints to the Council and its responses;
• discussed the complaint with Ms X and the Council;
• considered the information Ms X and the Council provided; and
• given Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision, and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislative background

Statutory nuisances

9. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. This includes noise from neighbour’s premises.
10. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
11. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
12. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the council’s officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
13. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Anti-social behaviour

14. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a general duty on councils to combat anti-social behaviour. A council should investigate and respond to complaints.
15. To discharge its duty a council should normally liaise with the police and other agencies as necessary. This may result in the council taking:
• No action;
• informal action such as advice and mediation, or
• formal action.
16. If a Council is satisfied formal action is needed, it can consider using its powers available for statutory noise nuisances, planning enforcement, landlord licencing and community protection notices.

Council’s Policy

17. The Council’s Policy says it will investigate noise complaints by considering diary sheets, site visits and noise recordings. It says it will attempt to collect evidence up to three times before it considers whether a statutory nuisance exists.
18. The Council has a noise application (Noise App), which residents can use to upload noise complaints. It says it will consider uploaded recordings and inform complainants about its findings.
19. Anti-Social behaviour complaints can be reported to its Community Safety Team, which sits within the Safer Trafford Partnership. Such complaints incudes verbal abuse or harassment, threatening behaviour, and noisy neighbours.
20. The Partnership uses a multi-agency approach to consider the complaints it receives with the aim of reducing crime and creating a community where people feel safe. If there is not enough evidence of anti-social behaviour, it will end its investigation and inform the complainants.

What happened

21. In summer 2020 Ms X reported a noise nuisance from her neighbour to the Council. She said the noise was from her neighbour’s use of power tools in their garden during the day and in the evening.
22. The Council’s Environmental Health team asked Ms X to complete noise nuisance diary sheets and return this to the Council.
23. Ms X completed the diary sheets for a three-month period and returned these to the Council.
24. The Council decided to send Ms X’s neighbour a letter, which explained a noise complaint had been made against them and the action the Council may take if a statutory nuisance was found.
25. Ms X then told the Council’s Environmental Health Officer the noise continued and was very loud. She also said she believed her neighbours were causing anti-social behaviour. The Officer told Ms X she would: consider the noise, ask its Planning Team if there were planning enforcement concerns and ask its Safer Communities Team for advice.
26. The Council says its Officer made an unannounced visit to observe the noise, but she could not hear the noise Ms X complained about.
27. Ms X video recorded her neighbour’s doing works in the garden with power tools during daytime and the noise this caused. She shared her recording with the Council.
28. In response the Council told Ms X that daytime noise from works in a garden is normally acceptable. It told her about its noise application (Noise App), which she could use to report noise issues. It also suggested video recording her neighbour may cause issues between her and her neighbours.
29. Ms X was not happy with how the Council had handled her concerns. She asked the Council to send a second letter to her neighbours, as the noise was also in the weekends and late in evenings. She also said the neighbour were intimidating her and causing anti-social behaviour, but the Council had not provided a response to these concerns.
30. The Council’s Community Safer Team told Ms X her complaint was not enough for it to consider any action for anti-social behaviour.
31. The Council Environmental Health manager told Ms X it was investigating her concerns. However, it needed evidence to take any action and suggested for her to upload noise recording on its Noise App. She explained its Officer had visited the outside of the neighbour’s property on a number of occasions but had not heard any of the noise complained about. She also asked for Ms X’s incident number from the police, so it could liaise with the police and determine if any action should be taken.
32. Ms X told the Council she had not reported the anti-social behaviour to the police. She also said she had tried to use the Noise App but was unable to upload her recordings. Although, she did manage to upload some recordings.
33. The Council decided to send Ms X’s neighbour a second letter about the alleged noise. However, it told Ms X it had considered the noise recordings provided and did not find this to amount to a statutory nuisance.
34. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her noise complaint and so she complained to the Council. She said its officer had handled her complaint poorly and its letters to her neighbours were not firm enough. She also found its noise app to be a waste of tax money.
35. Ms X continued to upload day and evening noise recording on the Council’s Noise App.
36. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer (Y) told Ms X it cannot stop her neighbour’s noise from works during reasonable hours. Nor could it do anything about her neighbours retaliating to Ms X’s yelling at them. She suggested from her to communicate directly with the Council and to report any criminal damage to the police. She also told the local community safety officer about in the area about the ongoing dispute.
37. The Council’s formal complaint response found it had properly investigated Ms X’s noise complaint.
38. Ms X told the Council it had failed to consider her complaints about her neighbours’ noise and antisocial behaviour properly. And so, she complained:
• Officer Y had wrongly put her complaints together, failed to consider her antisocial behaviour complaint and communicated with her inappropriately;
• it had not done enough to investigate her noise complaint and it visited at the wrong times to inspect the noise. She was led to believe it would help but it did not and its letters to her neighbours were not firm enough. She also found its Noise App difficult to use and some of her evening recordings had still not been considered by the Council.
39. In response, the Council considered Ms X’s noise complaint again. It apologised for its delay in responding to her. However, it did not uphold her complaint. It said:
• It had considered the diary sheets and recordings she had provided, but it found no evidence this amounted to a statutory nuisance;
• she had not been misled as it explained a statutory nuisance had to be proven, but suggested Ms X focussed on the evening noise;
• Its letters to her neighbours were neutral in tone as there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance;
• It had communicated with her in a timely manner and inspected when its officers were available; and
• It would investigate the evening noise recordings Ms X had submitted after she made her complaint about the Council’s handling of her noise concerns. It apologised for its delay in reviewing these, which was due to confusion between the various investigations.
40. The Council also responded to Ms X’s complaint about its Officer Y and apologised for the delay in providing its response. It found Officer Y had communicated appropriately and acted consistently in trying to resolve the antisocial behaviour disagreement.
41. Ms X remains unhappy about the Council’s handling of her complaints about noise, antisocial behaviour, and its Officer Y. She also says the Council failed to respond to her evening noise concerns. And so, she complained to the Ombudsman.
42. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it considered Ms X’s evening noise recordings. However, this was challenging due to Ms X’s issues in using its Noise App. It said it had received 92 day and evening time recordings, but 83 of these were corrupted and no noise could be heard. It found no statutory nuisance on her audible recordings. The Council said it asked its software developer to investigate, but it found no issues with the Noise App. It also said other residents were able to upload their recordings, so the issue was likely to be with Ms X’s device.
43. In addition, the Council also said it was under exceptional pressures at the time of Ms X’s complaint. This was because it had a high number of noise nuisance complaints, and its Environmental Health Team were at the forefront of COVID-19 related enforcement.
44. Ms X has since told us, the Council has still failed to investigate her noise concerns properly and the noise from her neighbours continues. She also says she now has pest issues coming from her neighbour’s property and the Council has failed to support her with this.

Analysis

Council’s daytime noise investigation

45. When Ms X told the Council about her concerns about the noise from her neighbours works, the Council acknowledged Ms X’s complaint. Its Environmental Health Officer gave her diary sheets, visited the neighbouring property to assess the noise and provided advice. She also suggested for Ms X to upload noise recordings on the Council’s Noise App and considered the recordings it received.
46. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s neighbour was causing a noise. However, it did not find the daytime noise amounted to a statutory nuisance and it told Ms X about its findings. This was in line with its policy. The Council therefore properly considered Ms X’s complaint about daytime noise, and I cannot criticise the merits of its decision.

Council’s evening time noise investigation

47. The Council told Ms X she should focus on evening time noise as this was more likely to amount to a statutory nuisance. It suggested for her to upload her recordings on its Noise App.
48. It was clear Ms X was struggling to use the Noise App and most of her recordings was either not received by the Council or were not audible when it did receive them. The Council said it considered the audible recordings and made genuine attempts to listen to all the recordings. It said it did not find a statutory nuisance and told Ms X.
49. I accept the Council listened to the uncorrupted recordings Ms X sent through its Noise App. However, Ms X is adamant the noise was clear and loud when she uploaded all the files. I recognise the added pressure the Council was experiencing due to the high number noise nuisance complaints and other pressures from COVID-19. However, I am not satisfied the Council properly investigated her alleged evening noise complaint. This is because:
• only 9 of the 92 recordings Ms X uploaded were audible, some of which were for daytime noise concerns;
• it did not offer Ms X to provide her recordings through an alternative method to enable it to assess the noise; and
• I have not seen evidence it considered further inspections during evening time, installing noise monitoring equipment or any other method to assess the evening noise Ms X was complaining about.
50. I acknowledge Ms X did not help matters, as in my view, the language she used in much of her correspondence with the Council was impolite and critical. However, the Council was at fault for its failure to properly investigate her evening noise complaint.
51. I cannot say if Ms X’s recordings or a proper investigation of the evening noise would have amounted to a statutory nuisance. However, I am satisfied Ms X experienced some distress due to the uncertainty this caused, and she had some time and trouble to get the Council to properly consider her concerns.

Council’s anti-social behaviour investigation

52. Ms X is unhappy the Council considered her noise and anti-social behaviour in the same complaint. She also said it did not do anything to address her neighbour’s anti-social behaviour.
53. The Council was entitled to respond to Ms X’s complaints at the same time. However, it must investigate each complaint and follow the law and its policies when doing so. I am satisfied the Council properly considered her anti-social behaviour complaint. This is because it:
• asked Ms X for a police reference number and suggested for her to report her concerns to the police;
• explained the normal process for anti-social behaviour complaints and the evidence needed for it to take any action;
• shared her complaint with its Community Safety Team and the Police;
• found it did not have enough evidence to determine whether Ms X or her neighbour was the perpetrator as both were accusing each other of wrongdoing; and
• told Ms X the reasons for its decision to take no further action.
54. The Council was therefore not at fault in how it handled Ms X’s anti-social behaviour complaint. Nor, for its decision to consider and respond to this complaint at the same time as her noise nuisance complaint.

Council’s Complaints handling

55. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s officers’ handling of her complaint and how they communicated with her, in particular Officer Y.
56. I have not found fault in how the Council’s officers communicated with Ms X, including Officer Y. This is because the correspondence I have seen shows the Council’s communication was polite, informative, and considerate. I also found Officer Y’ warning to Ms X regarding the language and tone she used towards the Council’s officers to be appropriate.
57. However, the were some delays in the Council’s complaints handling. The Council acknowledged its failure and explained why this had happened. It also apologised to Ms X. I am satisfied the Council’s apology is enough to remedy the limited injustice the delay caused Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

58. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Ms X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty caused by its failure to properly investigate her evening noise complaint;
2. Pay Ms X £100 to acknowledge the distress this caused and the time and trouble she had to get the Council to consider her evening noise concerns properly; and
59. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:

c) review its procedures for how it assesses noise complaints for residents who cannot use their Noise App or who have issues in uploading their recordings.

Back to top

Final decision

60. There was no fault in the Council handling of the daytime noise, anti-social behaviour and staff behaviour complaints. However, there was fault leading to injustice in its handling of the evening noise complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

61. I have not investigated Ms X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of her noise complaints from January 2021, nor its handling of her pest control concerns. This is because these are new matters.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman