Summary: Miss C said the Council did not do enough to prevent her neighbour from making noise. The Council was at fault for delay and for poor communication. This caused injustice to Miss C who was understandably frustrated and annoyed. The Council has agreed to pay Miss C a sum in recognition of this injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss C, says the Council was at fault for:
1. Delay in dealing with reports of noise and antisocial behaviour she made against her neighbour, and
2. Poor communication with her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 spoke to Miss C. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council requesting further information. I considered the information I had gathered and applied any relevant law and guidance.
5. Miss C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

Noise nuisance

6. Complaints about noise are governed by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. On receiving a complaint about a noise nuisance, a council must investigate to see whether it amounts to a ‘statutory nuisance’. To do so, it must either:

• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; or
• Injure health or be likely to injure health.

7. The law says a statutory noise nuisance must be sufficient to cause distress to a person of normal sensitivity. A council officer will visit to make an independent judgment as to whether the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance.
8. Many factors will affect an officer’s decision. They will consider the time and duration of any noise or smell as well as its severity. They may ask complainants to keep a noise diary to help assess the impact on them. Councils may use sound measuring equipment though there is no statutory requirement to do so.
9. If a council decides a noise or odour amounts to a statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice requiring the perpetrator to stop. If it decides that the noise made does not amount to a statutory nuisance it can continue to use informal intervention to try to solve the problem.

Registered social landlords

10. Registered social housing providers (such as housing associations and local authority landlords) have a responsibility to prevent anti-social behaviour, such as noise from neighbours.

What happened

Background

11. Miss C lives in a flat in the Council’s area. She rents it from a registered social landlord. A new neighbour moved in below her in 2020 and allegedly began to make noise in about November 2020. The problem, Miss C said, seemed to be caused by a generator or drier which vibrated her flat and by constant noise, music, argument and so forth until the early hours of the morning every day.
12. The Council intervened and the noise died down but Miss C said it began again in April 2021. Miss C contacted the Council. She did so again on 9 August 2021. She received no response until 1 September 2021. The Council then told her to keep a noise diary. As she had already done this, she sent the diary sheets back immediately. She received no further contact until 27 September 2021.
13. That day, the Council wrote to Miss C’s neighbour and told her that it had received a complaint. It asked her neighbour to make less noise. Over the same period, Miss C also complained to her landlord. The landlord contacted the neighbour and Miss C said the noise reduced. However, she says it soon resumed. Miss C approached her neighbour who she says was rude and aggressive. Miss C says she became increasingly distressed by her situation.
14. At the end of October 2021, Miss C contacted her local councillor about the noise. She said she was afraid of her neighbour who, she says, has been rude and threatening since her contact.
15. On 7 October 2021, Miss C complained formally to the Council about the Council’s failures to deal with her concerns. She said:
1. She had first contacted the Council about noise in early August 2021. It took three weeks for her report to be acknowledged. The Council had taken too long to deal with her complaints of noise nuisance, and
2. It had also failed to communicate with her adequately about her concerns.
16. On 12 October 2021, a Council public protection officer, Officer O, wrote to Miss C and told her the Council had contacted her neighbour and asked her to reduce any noise. He asked Miss C to again complete diary sheets. Officer O also said he had put Miss C on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment.
17. Miss C contacted Officer O about the equipment. Due to administrative confusion, Officer O told her the equipment would be installed in mid-November 2021. This was not correct as there was a waiting list for the equipment.
18. The Council replied to Miss C’s stage one complaint on 19 October 2021. The Council apologised for a failure in its service and said it would put noise monitoring equipment in Miss C’s flat as soon as possible.
19. Miss C escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s internal complaints procedure at the end of October 2021.
20. In late November 2021, during an internal review of the service Miss C had received, a senior officer, Officer P, discovered that Officer O had mistakenly told Miss C that noise monitoring equipment would be installed in her flat in early November 2021. He acknowledged there had been an administrative error but suggested that much of the delay had been caused by failures by Miss C’s landlord which had failed to respond adequately to her noise reports.
21. As a result of the Council’s accepted fault, in late-December 2021, Officer P arranged to move Miss C up the queue and to install the equipment at Miss C’s flat for one week between late December 2021 and early January 2022. The Council said it would review the recordings within two weeks.
22. The Council installed the equipment as agreed in late December 2021 but, although it arranged to collect the equipment twice in January 2022, it failed to do so. Miss C says she missed various appointments because of these failures.
23. The Council told Miss C , it would review the recordings within two weeks. In fact, it took two and a half weeks for Officer P to review the recordings. He decided that any noise picked up by the equipment was not deliberate, malicious or excessively loud or long-lasting. He said there was no noise nuisance. Officer P suggested Miss C should contact her landlord to try to find a solution.
24. The Council delivered its stage two response in mid-February 2022. It said:
1. Delays: The Council upheld Miss C’s complaint and apologised.
2. Failures of communication. The Council upheld Miss C’s complaint and apologised.

Was there fault causing injustice?

25. Miss C’s primary concern is the noise from her neighbour’s flat. The Council has installed noise monitoring equipment in her flat. It considers that, at least over the period when the equipment was in place, the noise was not malicious, long-lasting, excessive or deliberate.
26. The Ombudsman cannot find fault with this decision. This was a professional decision made by an experienced officer who had reviewed the recordings. If the noise continues, Miss C can continue to report noise to the Council and her landlord and each report must be considered on its merits.
27. The Council has accepted it was at fault for delay and for a failure to communicate with Ms C. I endorse the Council’s findings. I have recommended a personal remedy in recognition of this fault.
28. The Council has suggested that some of the delay in this case was caused by her landlord’s failure to deal properly with Miss C’s noise reports.
29. While the evidence shows the landlord did have problems accessing recordings made by Miss C and sent in via its ‘noise app’, the evidence also shows that Miss C first contacted the Council about noise in early August 2021 and heard nothing for three weeks. She then sent in noise records and a further four weeks passed without Council action on her complaint. Only after her follow up email did the Council contact Miss C’s neighbour to try and address Miss C’s concerns.
30. The Council also wrongly told Miss C she would have sound recording equipment in November 2021 when, in fact, this was not the case. This was also fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council has agreed that, within four weeks of the date of this decision, it will write to Miss C, apologise again and pay her £200 in recognition of the distress caused by its delay and confused approach to her complaints about noise.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have decided the Council was at fault for delay. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman