Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to investigate a noise nuisance from a neighbouring property and about poor communication. The Council was at fault for delay in deciding if the noise from pipes was a statutory nuisance and poor communication. The Council has already apologised about the delay in collecting the noise equipment and delay in responding to Ms X emails. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X £200 for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays. The Council will reinstall the noise equipment, decide if it is a statutory nuisance and remind staff about customer service response times.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to investigate noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. She said this caused her distress and the noise from her neighbour’s property affected her health and social life. She also complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaint and poor communication.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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

5. I have considered:
• the information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents; and
• relevant law and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. We considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Statutory nuisance

7. Councils must investigate complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The noise complained about might be loud music, barking dogs, noisy neighbours, rowdy pubs or noise from industrial, trade or business premises.
8. For a noise to count as a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
9. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
10. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health 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.

What happened

11. Ms X is a council tenant. Ms X’s property sits between two properties, property A and property B, which are both owned by a housing association. In early 2021 Ms X complained to the Council about loud music and shouting from her neighbours at property A.
12. In August 2021 Ms X contacted the housing association about noise from banging pipes from the property to her other side, property B. Ms X said the housing association sent a surveyor instead of a plumber to investigate the noise and the noise was still a problem.
13. In mid-October 2021 the Council agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in relation to the noise from property A. In late October 2021 Ms X contacted the Council about the noise from property B which she considered was due to banging pipes. She told the Council the noise often woke her up at night and disturbed her peace during the day. Ms X said a Council officer responded in early November 2021 and told her it was a domestic issue and she should contact the housing association. Ms X told the Council officer she had already contacted the housing association.
14. In mid-November 2021 Ms X spoke to the Council on the telephone and emailed the Council twice about the noise from property B and asked for the pipes to be fixed urgently. She said the noise from property A had calmed down and the plumbing noises from property B were her biggest concern. The Council emailed Ms X the same day and agreed to speak to the housing association to see if they could help reduce the noise. The Council suggested the power shower could be the cause of the noise and confirmed to Ms X it would install noise recording equipment in Ms X’s property.
15. In mid-December 2021 the Council installed noise monitoring equipment in Ms X’s property. This was set up to record noise from property B. A noise recording equipment loan agreement was signed by the Council and Ms X on the day the equipment was installed. The agreement said the equipment would be installed between mid-December 2021 until the last day of December 2021.
16. In late December 2021 and early January 2022 Ms X emailed the Council and asked if she could have the equipment longer. She wanted to move the noise equipment to a different part of the house so she could record noise from property A as well as the banging pipes from property B.
17. In mid-January 2022 Ms X emailed the Council and complained the Council had given her incorrect advice in early November 2021 that it could not deal with a domestic noise issue and that she had not had a response from the Council about moving the equipment.
18. Six days later the Council said a manager would respond about her concerns. Two days later the Council responded to Ms X and apologised for not keeping her informed. It said it would pass her noise complaint to the Anti Social Behaviour and Environment Team (ASBET) because property A and property B were housing association properties and ASBET dealt with installing noise recording equipment. Ms X was confused by the change in Council team because the situation had not changed since her initial complaint of noise from the pipes in October 2021.
19. In mid-March 2022 Ms X emailed the Council and asked why the Council had not picked up the noise recording equipment and complained she was still disturbed by the banging pipes at night. She asked the Council to pick up the noise recording equipment as soon as possible so she had proof of the banging noises coming from property B.
20. In late March 2022 the Council sent Ms X a letter explaining it registered Ms X’s mid-March 2022 email as a formal complaint. The Council’s stage 1 response included:
• an explanation about the role of two council departments and how they dealt with noise complaints;
• an apology for any confusion and delay about which council department should have been contacted and responded to Ms X noise complaint from mid December 2021 to mid January 2022;
• officers had contacted Ms X about collecting the noise equipment but on the dates suggested Ms X was not available. The Council asked Ms X to give dates she was available for the Council to collect the recording equipment; and
• an apology for any time Ms X felt ignored by the Council and it said it would remind all officers of the Council’s customer service standards of responding to enquiries within 10 days.
21.  
22. In early April 2022 the Council emailed Ms X and asked if it could collect the noise equipment. Four days later the Council collected the noise recording equipment from Ms X’s property.
23. In early May 2022 Ms X made a stage 2 complaint to the Council. She said she wanted an explanation about:
• why the noise equipment was not collected at the end of December 2021;
• why a council officer ignored her emails from mid December 2021 to mid January 2022;
• why a different council team dealt with her noise complaint from mid -January 2022 onwards when the situation had not altered from her original complaint;
• why it took four months to collect the noise equipment; and
• why the Council had not contacted her to discuss the noise recording results.
24. In mid May 2022 the Council sent Ms X it’s stage 2 response. It said:
• it previously explained the role of two council teams and their roles with noise complaints and explained it again to Ms X;
• it apologised for not collecting the noise recording equipment in December 2021;
• it apologised a council officer did not respond to her emails between mid December 2021 and mid January 2022 and explained the officer took emergency leave; and
• it had reminded officers to deal with queries when they were made and not to wait until staff members returned from leave.
25. Ms X was not happy with the Council’s response and complained to us about the Council’s failure to deal with the noise from property B. Ms X says the tenants at property A have moved and noise from that property is no longer an issue.

Response to my enquiries

26. The Council confirmed:
• availability of the Council and Ms X’s availability caused delay in the noise monitoring equipment collection; and
• it could not find the downloaded noise recordings, recorded by the noise monitoring equipment.

My findings

27. We cannot investigate complaints about councils in their role as a social landlord or any complaints about housing associations. We can consider how a council has dealt with noise under its environmental health powers.
28. After receiving the complaint about the banging pipes, the Council initially told Ms X to speak to the housing association which Ms X had already done. This initially caused Ms X frustration but the Council then arranged for noise monitoring equipment to be installed in her property and contacted the housing association to establish if the noise could be fixed which was the correct process.
29. When the noise monitoring equipment was installed in mid-December 2021 both the Council and Ms X signed a noise monitoring equipment loan agreement. This agreement said the equipment would be collected on the last day of 2021. This did not happen. Ms X chased the Council about collecting the equipment in mid-March. The noise monitoring equipment was collected by the Council in mid-April 2022 which was a delay of four months. The Council has already apologised to Ms X for the delay, however this caused her frustration.
30. Between late December 2021 and mid January 2022 the Council did not respond to Ms X’s emails. The Council has already apologised to Ms X for a delayed response, however the failure to respond to Ms X was fault which caused her frustration. The Council then informed her a different Council department (ASBET) would contact her regarding the noise equipment. This was the appropriate team to deal with Ms X’s concerns. However the failure to clearly explain why this was the case caused her confusion.
31. Once the noise monitoring equipment had been collected the Council did not inform Ms X of the outcome or explain if the noise was a statutory nuisance. The Council cannot now find the noise recordings and there is no evidence it analysed these to see if a statutory nuisance existed. This was fault.
32. It is for the Council to decide, using its professional judgment, whether a noise is a statutory nuisance. The Council’s failure to analyse the noise recordings leaves Ms X with a sense of uncertainty over whether any further action could or should have been taken by the Council to address the noise from the pipes.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within one month of the final decision the Council will apologise for the delay in determining if the banging pipes caused a statutory noise nuisance and pay Ms X £200 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty this caused.
34. Within two months of the final decision the Council will:
• reinstall the noise monitoring equipment at Ms X’s property to determine if the noise from the pipes is a statutory nuisance;
• clearly explain to Ms X in writing the outcome of the noise nuisance; and
• provide evidence it has revised its procedures to ensure it responds to enquiries when staff members are off sick or on leave.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation finding fault with the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman