Summary: Miss C says the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns about noise nuisance, failed to respond to some of her communications, failed to consider the evidence she put in and forced her to put in a corporate complaint. The Council failed to record its view on whether noise recording equipment was appropriate, failed to respond to some of Miss C’s communications and failed to address some of the issues Miss C raised in her complaint. None of that affected the outcome. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss C, complained the Council:
• failed to provide her with information about the process;
• did not tell her about the option of having noise recording equipment installed;
• failed to consider her noise complaint properly;
• failed to respond to all her communications or consider her evidence;
• wrongly refused to consider her noise complaint while the Council was investigating her concerns about the officer involved; and
• gave her conflicting information about who it had written to.
2. Miss C says the lack of action has affected her mentally and emotionally and has led to high blood pressure.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Miss C and the organisation 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

The Council’s noise service

8. Information about the Council’s noise service on its website says its environmental protection team rely on residents to report noise when it is taking place. It says the Council uses this as evidence when an officer visits to investigate. It says the service is mostly reactive.
9. It says when complaints are received a letter and diary sheets will be sent. Where completed diary sheets are returned and show a pattern of noise disturbance, officers can plan to carry out pro-active visits (by prior arrangement) to assess the noise reported.
10. It says when noise is irregular, officers can install a sound level meter to monitor noise. This is after receiving and reviewing completed diary sheets. Officers can analyse the noise recorded and tell the resident if follow up action is required. It says although monitoring with a sound level meter may identify the type of noise it will not identify the source. It says it is therefore important an officer visits to find out where the noise is coming from.
11. It says the Council will close a file after 28 days if:
• it does not receive communication from affected residents following a report;
• diary sheets are not submitted;
• the noise response service has not been contacted to visit and assess the noise.
12. It says for the noise team to detect nuisance according to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Council must show a statutory nuisance is taking place or likely to reoccur.

What happened

13. Miss C says she has been experiencing noise nuisance from her neighbour since 2020. On 28 January 2022 Miss C contacted the Council about noise from her neighbour. The Council advised Miss C to contact the antisocial behaviour team as well as she had reported threatening behaviour from the neighbour. The Council sent Miss C a letter with diary sheets. The Council also gave Miss C a telephone number to call if she was affected by noise. The Council wrote to the neighbouring property the same day.
14. On 9 March 2022 Miss C submitted diary sheets and further details about the nuisance she had experienced. The Council acknowledged receipt of the diary sheets and explained to take action the Council had to identify a statutory noise nuisance. The Council explained the issues reported of banging, shouting, thumping and dropping things appeared to be the behaviour of the current tenants and in those circumstances the housing provider was best placed to follow up on that antisocial behaviour. The Council explained it asked residents to contact the Council when the noise occurred so an officer could visit to assess the noise. The Council provided Miss C with a telephone number to report noise when it was experienced.
15. Miss C queried that as the landlord in her case was a private landlord. When the Council did not respond Miss C chased it on 5 and 8 April.
16. In the meantime the landlord for the neighbouring property told the Council the tenants complained of had moved out. On 8 April Miss C told the Council that was not accurate. The Council told Miss C she would still need to telephone when the noise was experienced so officers could visit.
17. On 30 April Miss C reported loud music, shouting and banging in the evening. By the time an officer visited the music had stopped. The Council therefore sent Miss C further diary sheets and wrote to her neighbour, although Miss C says she did not receive a further letter. The Council asked Miss C to return the diary sheets after three weeks. The Council also reminded Miss C to telephone its noise service at the time of any noise nuisance so it could record the complaint. Miss C did not return diary sheets after three weeks. The Council therefore noted there was no further action to take although Miss C says she was waiting for the Council to return her calls.
18. Miss C raised concerns about how her case had been dealt with on 7 June and raised some concerns about the case officer allocated to her. The Council acknowledged the email and said the team leader would respond when she returned from leave. Miss C chased the Council again on 21 June as she had not received a reply.
19. The Council responded on 22 June to advise Miss C to make a corporate complaint given she had made allegations about the case officer. The Council reminded Miss C it had advised her to contact the service on the telephone number provided if she was experiencing noise nuisance. The Council said it could install a sound level meter to monitor noise in cases where diary sheets showed noise as ad hoc or intermittent. The Council said it did not have evidence to progress the case.
20. Miss C raised concerns about the Council closing her case and not responding to her telephone calls and messages. Miss C then provided diary sheets on 23 June. The Council acknowledged receipt of those and again advised Miss C to contact the noise service when she was experiencing noise so an officer could visit. The Council told Miss C if she wanted to pursue her concerns about how the Council had dealt with the case further she should put in a corporate complaint.
21. Following a formal complaint the Council again asked Miss C to telephone when she was experiencing noise so an officer could visit. The Council said it had no grounds to change the case officer allocated.
22. In response Miss C provided a copy of a phone bill showing her attempts to contact the Council. Miss C also referred to emails which had not been responded to. The Council acknowledged it had failed to respond to an email on 22 March but did not find the case had been mishandled. The Council again encouraged Miss C to telephone when she was experiencing noise so an officer could visit.
23. There is no evidence of any further noise reports from Miss C to the Council. I understand the tenants complained of moved out of the property earlier this year.

Analysis

24. Miss C says the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns about noise nuisance from her neighbours. I set out in paragraphs 8-12 the process the Council should follow when receiving a noise complaint. That makes clear in the first instance the Council will send the person who has complained a letter and diary sheets to complete. I am satisfied the Council did that in this case when Miss C reported noise nuisance on 28 January 2022. I am also satisfied the Council made clear to Miss C at that point she should telephone the Council’s noise service at the time of the noise nuisance so an officer could visit to witness the noise. In addition, the Council wrote to Miss C’s neighbour to inform them of the noise complaint and the Council’s options if noise continued and it was considered a nuisance. The action the Council took on the initial noise complaint is in accordance with the Council’s procedure and the action I would normally expect the Council to pursue in the first instance.
25. I am also satisfied the diary sheets the Council sent Miss C set out the types of noise the Council could consider, the fact Council officers would need to witness the nuisance to take action and that the Council had no duty to take legal action unless it was satisfied a nuisance existed. The Council also provided Miss C with details of how to pursue her own private action if she wished to do so. The information the Council provided Miss C with did not mention the possibility of installing recording equipment if the noise reported in diary sheets was irregular, which I would have expected it to do given it is in the Council’s noise service information. Nevertheless, given the rest of the information in the diary sheets I could not say the Council failed to provide Miss C with any information.
26. I am satisfied the Council followed the right process in Miss C’s case by asking her to contact the noise service team so officers could witness the noise nuisance. I am also satisfied when Miss C returned the diary sheets to the Council the Council dealt with that by asking Miss C to telephone the noise service when she was experiencing noise so officers could visit to witness the noise. Miss C has provided her telephone records which show only two instances when she contacted the out of hours team, despite reporting regular noise nuisance on her diary sheets. On the second occasion on 30 April 2022 the noise had stopped by the time an officer visited. Given the Council did not have an opportunity to visit to witness the noise itself I cannot criticise the Council for failing to take further action. To take further action the Council would have needed to witness the noise to establish whether it was a statutory nuisance. That is because only if the Council established the noise was a statutory nuisance could it take formal action.
27. I am also satisfied the Council acted appropriately when dealing with the report of noise nuisance on 30 April 2022. As the Council was unable to witness the noise nuisance on that occasion it wrote to Miss C again to ask her to complete and return diary sheets after three weeks and also wrote to her neighbour. I have seen no evidence Miss C either contacted the noise service to report noise at the time she was experiencing it or that she returned diary sheets at the end of the three week period. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for failing to take action.

28. I appreciate though Miss C submitted diary sheets later in June 2022. Those diary sheets showed continuing noise nuisance between May 2022 and June 2022. I am satisfied the Council acted on those diary sheets by contacting Miss C and reminding her of the need to report noise at the time it was experienced so the noise service could send out an officer to witness the noise. That is the same information the Council had previously provided to Miss C. I have seen no evidence to suggest Miss C followed that advice. I appreciate from Miss C’s point of view she had provided diary sheets. However, I am satisfied the Council had made clear while this was useful information she would also need to report noise at the time it was experienced so officers could witness it. I cannot criticise the Council for not taking action based on the diary sheets alone because that would not be sufficient for the Council to take enforcement action and I am satisfied the Council had told Miss C that.
29. I would have expected the Council to consider though whether it was appropriate to install noise recording equipment in Miss C’s property given the noise reported on the diary sheets returned in March 2022 showed loud music at irregular times. The Council’s procedure says a sound level meter can be appropriate in those circumstances to monitor noise. The Council says the officer did consider that point but decided it was not necessary and instead considered it appropriate to refer the case to its social services and housing departments to deal with the issues of antisocial behaviour. There is no record of that consideration though and as the diary sheets also showed various references to loud music being played for an extended period I would have expected the Council to record its reasoning for not considering noise recording equipment appropriate. Failure to do that is fault. I do not consider it likely though this resulted in any injustice to Miss C given there is no evidence of further noise reports to the Council after June 2022.
30. I recognise Miss C says she was not told about the option of noise recording equipment at the outset. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council mentioned that to Miss C until June 2022. As I said earlier, I would have expected the Council’s initial communications with Miss C to include that information. Nevertheless, to establish whether noise is a statutory nuisance councils will usually need officers to witness the noise in person. I am satisfied the Council had already made that clear to Miss C on several occasions and there is no evidence, with the exception of two telephone calls, to suggest Miss C followed the Council’s advice on each occasion she experienced noise. So, while I consider the Council should have made Miss C aware of the option of noise recording equipment and considered whether it was appropriate to install it in June 2022 when she provided further diary sheets, I do not consider that likely made a difference to the outcome in this case.
31. Miss C says the officer she dealt with was disengaged and made clear she did not want to deal with the concerns Miss C raised. The officer denies that and says she does not have a record of speaking to Miss C on the date in question. I am satisfied a call took place to the officer on 3 May 2022 as Miss C has telephone records which show a lengthy call on that date to the officer’s number. Failing to keep a record of telephone calls is fault. Miss C has raised concerns about how she was dealt with during that call. As there is no voice recording for the telephone call I cannot reach a safe conclusion about what the officer told Miss C. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for telling Miss C it would not change the officer allocated.
32. Having considered the documentary evidence though I am satisfied the Council was consistent in advising Miss C to telephone the noise service when she experienced noise nuisance so officers could witness it, which is what I would have expected the Council to do. It is clear to me in this case the Council did not take any action because it was not, at any stage, able to establish Miss C was experiencing a statutory noise nuisance. That was not due to any fault by the Council.
33. Miss C says the Council forced her to pursue a complaint about officers when all she wanted was for her noise complaint to be investigated by a different officer. I recognise Miss C was advised to register a corporate complaint when she raised concerns about how the allocated case officer dealt with the case. However, that is the advice I would expect the Council to give Miss C and it is not fault for it to do so. I am satisfied though it was still Miss C’s choice whether to pursue a corporate complaint and I therefore do not consider the Council forced her to do so. Nor have I found any evidence to suggest the Council told Miss C it would not investigate her noise complaint until the corporate complaint process had completed. Rather, the documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council continued to correspond with Miss C about her noise complaint and regularly advised her about the importance of contacting the noise service when the noise was experienced so officers could visit.
34. Miss C says the Council failed to respond to her queries and communications and failed to take into account her evidence when responding to her complaint. In terms of written communications, I am satisfied the Council responded to all those communications except for an email to the allocated case officer on 22 March 2022 and an email in April 2022. I understand delays occurred because the environmental health team had higher than caseloads at the time as the team was not fully staffed. I also understand the case officer dealing with the case was out of the office for part of the period. While I understand the pressures on officers, failure to respond to those emails until after Miss C chased is fault. There is also no evidence when responding to Miss C’s complaint the Council addressed the specific issue Miss C had raised about an officer not responding to her voicemail or the phone records she had provided to support her complaint. Failure to refer to the evidence Miss C provided is fault given she provided that evidence to challenge some of the Council’s findings.
35. Miss C is also concerned about the Council failing to respond to telephone messages she left. The Council says it does not have any evidence of telephone messages which were not returned. Miss C has provided a copy of her telephone records which show various telephone calls where she was connected to the Council’s telephone system for a length of time which initially suggested she had likely left telephone messages. However, the Council has provided some more detail about how it’s telephone system works. The Council says even if a direct line for an officer is telephoned if the officer is not available the line diverts to the support team. The person can then remain on hold until an officer becomes available. The Council therefore says just because Miss C was connected to the Council’s phone system does not mean she spoke to an officer or left a message as she could just have been on hold.
36. Given how the Council’s telephone system works I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether Miss C left voice messages which were not returned on those occasions where her telephone was connected to the Council’s telephone system.
37. Miss C says the Council gave her conflicting information about whether it had written to her neighbour. Miss C says the Council said it had written to her neighbour’s landlord but then changed that to say it had written to the tenant when Miss C pointed out the landlord had visited her and not mentioned the Council’s letter. I am satisfied the documentary evidence shows both that the Council wrote to the tenant at the neighbouring property and that it wrote to the managing agent for the landlord of that property. I do not consider there is any conflicting information here that warrants a finding of fault given the managing agent was acting on behalf of the landlord.
38. So, I have found fault as the Council cannot demonstrate it considered the option of installing noise recording equipment, failed to address all the issues raised in the complaint and failed to respond to two emails. I do not consider those failures made any difference to the action the Council has taken as there is evidence of only one occasion when Miss C contacted the Council while she was experiencing noise nuisance when an officer was able to visit and in that case the noise had stopped by the time the officer was able to visit.
39. I therefore consider Miss C’s injustice is limited to her frustration and distress at not being given information about noise recording equipment, the Council’s failure to address the evidence she had provided in support of her complaint and its failure to respond to two emails. I consider a satisfactory remedy would be for the Council to apologise to Miss C. I also recommended the Council remind officers in the environmental protection team of the need to consider whether to install noise recording equipment if diary sheets show the noise reported is intermittent. Officers should also make a note when that has been considered and ruled out. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss C;
• remind officers of the need to consider whether noise recording equipment should be installed where diary sheets show intermittent noise and make a note where officers decide this is not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Miss C an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman