Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and take action regarding a noise nuisance caused by a nearby sports facility. We have found the Council to be at fault but dealt with this appropriately by installing double glazing, apologising and making an offer of payment to Mr X. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice suffered. We therefore propose completing this investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate and enforce an ongoing noise nuisance issue at a sports facility next door to his home.
2. He says this nuisance was ongoing for several years, causing him disruption, annoyance and frustration. Mr X is also unhappy at the lack of response to his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 the complainant and reviewed the information provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and reviewed the relevant law.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Noise

8. Sections 79 and 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 say:

• councils have a duty to respond to complaints of statutory nuisance by taking such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate them;
• councils have a duty to take action if they consider there is a statutory nuisance;
• a statutory nuisance includes "noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance."

9. To decide whether noise is a statutory nuisance councils will consider factors such as the level of noise, the length of any episode, frequency, timing and location.

Events leading up to the complaint

10. In November 2014, the Council granted planning permission for a new development, including a sports training ground. Afterwards, Mr X lived moved into a property next to the new facility.
11. In 2017, Mr X complained to the Council about noise from the sports ground. He had been trying to resolve the matter with the club owners but was unsuccessful. In response the Council asked Mr X to monitor and record the noise levels to ascertain the extent of the problem. This led to lengthy discussions with the club and the developer to identify a solution that would address the problem. Mr X says the club was more interested in generating an income from the pitch beyond the terms set out in the original planning permission, often early in the morning and late at night. The developer agreed to erect acoustic fencing, however, Mr X says this did little to alleviate the problem.
12. The Council commissioned both an independent acoustic assessment and legal advice. Both took many months to arrange.
13. In July 2019, the Council agreed to fund double glazing and ventilation to the affected properties as well as a commitment to consideration of enforcement action about a possible breach by the sports club. The double glazing was installed in November 2020, later than anticipated due to the pandemic.
14. Mr X says the double glazing made only a marginal improvement and the sports club continued to operate during unsociable hours. He was disappointed by the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action. Frustrated by the outcome and ongoing noise nuisance, Mr X felt he had no choice but to move house. He also lodged a formal complaint with the Council in August 2020. The Council replied in September 2021.

The Council’s position

• It accepted and apologised for the delay in progressing the case and responding to Mr X’s complaint. Some delay was unavoidable as it was caused by the pandemic.
• The Council had to consider the often-opposing needs of residents, the planning conditions and the sports club.
• Discussions were ongoing with the sports club to try and achieve an appropriate solution, particularly around its hours of operation.
• All affected residents, including Mr X, had obtained the benefit of superior double glazing, new doors and increased security, at a cost of approximately £5000 per property. This financial investment increased the value of his home. The Council understood this action would resolve the outstanding complaint but did not consider it necessary or appropriate to formalise this in writing.
• To acknowledge this impact of the delay and poor handing of the case at times, the Council offered to pay Mr X £400.

15. The Council’s conclusion was that the ongoing commitment to resolve issues with the club and the financial remedy totalling £5400, was adequate redress for the injustice caused.

Analysis

16. The Council has accepted there was fault with its handling of this case. In response to my enquires it has provided an explanation for several periods of delay, including providing a formal response to Mr X’s complaint, and why the matter had not been straightforward.
17. Some of this delay was due to factors beyond the Council’s control, for example the pandemic, seasonal use of the pitch and negotiations with other parties including the developer and the sports club. Additional time was also spent seeking an independent acoustic assessment, legal advice and making arrangements for double glazing and new doors to several properties.
18. I am satisfied the Council is committed to resolve the ongoing issues. It has considered taking enforcement action against the club but decided this was not appropriate and it preferred to achieve a resolution through negotiation with the club. As enforcement action is discretionary, this was decision the Council was entitled to make.
19. As the Council has accepted fault, I do not consider it is necessary or proportionate to investigate this further.
20. Mr X has now moved house and so there is no ongoing injustice for me to consider. In acknowledgement of its fault, the Council has proposed a remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
21. The Ombudsman does not recommend compensation payments or punitive damages. But whenever we find fault causing injustice, we look to remedy the injustice caused. Sometimes this is not easy, and we recommend token payments in recognition of avoidable distress and uncertainty.
22. The Council has said it has followed the Ombudsman’s guidance in determining the financial remedy, which is welcomed. This recognises the time, trouble and stress which the delays in case progression and complaint handling caused. In addition to this, it has apologised and funded the installation of double glazing and doors that added value to Mr X’s property.
23. These are suitable remedies and any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault in its handing of Mr X’s complaint about noise nuisance and has already provided a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman