Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her noise complaints since April 2022. There was no fault in the Council’s approach to Ms X’s concerns about the noise disturbance from her neighbour.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of noise complaints she has been making to it about her neighbour since April 2022. Ms X thinks the Council could have done more to better manage her expectations about the action it could take and the threshold for statutory noise nuisance and abatement action. Ms X feels she has wasted a year recording incidents of noise disturbances by her neighbour when the Council had no intention of taking further meaningful action. Ms X is particularly upset by the content and tone of a response sent to her local Councillor about the case by the Council’s Chief Executive. Ms X would like the Council to acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to her by its earlier poor handling of her concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 have spoken to Ms X and considered the evidence she has provided in support of her concerns.
5. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
6. Ms X 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

Statutory Nuisance

7. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) states that smoke, gases/fumes, dust, steam, odour, deposits or noise emitted from premises, including land, can be a statutory nuisance. If someone living in a council’s area complains about a statutory nuisance, the council must ‘take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint’.
8. 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.

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.
11. 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.
12. If a council is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, it must serve an Abatement Notice on the person responsible for the nuisance, or on the owner or occupier. The Council can prosecute someone if they fail to comply with an Abatement Notice.
13. Under the EPA, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. However, a member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court is persuaded they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to draw a complainant’s attention to their right to private action under section 82. of the EPA.

What happened

14. In late April 2022, Ms X contacted the Council to report unacceptable noise from her neighbour. The Council replied to Ms X’s report a few days later and briefly explained the process for progressing a noise complaint.
15. In early May 2022, the Council wrote to Ms X and her neighbour alleged to be causing the noise disturbance. The Council’s letter to Ms X included copies of diary sheets it asked her to complete with details of the instances when noise disturbances occurred. The Council asked Ms X to return completed diary sheets to it in four weeks. The Council also provided details of its Noise App – an online application, which Ms X could use to record a snapshot of the noise disturbance when it occurred. The Council explained it would close its case if it did not receive completed diary sheets within eight weeks of its letter.
16. At the end of August 2022, Ms X emailed the Council with details of the instances when she had experienced excessive noise from her neighbour’s address. The Council acknowledged receipt of Ms X’s email and asked her to complete the diary sheets provided so it could consider the issue further. The Environmental Protection Officer dealing with Ms X’s case asked her to copy any email contact it sent to them to their team’s generic email address.
17. Ms X contacted the Council again in late October 2023 to ask for diary sheets. The allocated Officer called to try and speak to Ms X on two occasions in early November 2022, but were unable to reach her or leave a message. The Officer then managed to leave Ms X a message when they made their third attempt to speak to her by telephone.
18. The Environmental Protection Officer allocated to Ms X’s case left their job with the Council shortly after this. The Council closed its case for Ms X’s complaint as it had not received completed diary sheets from her by mid-November 2022.
19. Ms X contacted the Council again in late February 2023 to report the noise disturbance from her neighbour had restarted. Since then, the Council has been in regular contact with Ms X about this matter. The Council has undertaken visits to Ms X’s home, written to Ms X’s neighbour and their landlord, and has installed noise monitoring equipment on three occasions in Ms X’s home.
20. In April 2023, Ms X contacted her Member of Parliament (MP) to raise concerns about the lack of meaningful action from the Council following her noise complaints. The Council responded to the MP and explained it had not been able to proceed in the absence of completed diary sheets from Ms X in 2022. The Council also explained it was currently engaging with Ms X to help with the noise issues.
21. To date, the Council has not witnessed or identified evidence that the noise from Ms X’s neighbour constitutes a statutory noise nuisance which would warrant it taking abatement action.

Analysis

22. Councils have to take steps that are reasonably practicable to investigate reports of noise nuisance. The Council did so in Ms X’s case.
23. The Council made clear to Ms X from the outset it could not proceed unless she first provided it with completed diary sheets, detailing the incidents of noise and the impact this had on her and her family. The Council acted in accordance with its procedure when it closed cases relating to Ms X’s reports in 2022 as it had not received completed diary sheets from her.
24. There does not appear to be any dispute that the neighbour is creating noise and that this is causing annoyance and distress to Ms X. The Council has made home visits and has installed noise monitoring equipment in Ms X’s home. It has not however determined that the level and persistence of noise from Ms X’s neighbour reached the threshold whereby it could consider it to be a statutory nuisance. The Council has nonetheless written to Ms X’s neighbour and their landlord in an attempt to resolve the matter informally.
25. Ms X does not agree with the approach the Council has taken. But this is a matter of professional judgement. We do not generally find fault with a council when officers exercise their professional judgement in a reasonable fashion, and I do not consider the Council’s approach was unreasonable in this case.
26. Ms X says she felt the Chief Executive’s response to her MP was inappropriate and based on lies. Having reviewed the correspondence, I have not identified information that appears factually inaccurate or not reflective of the action the Council had taken in Ms X’s case.
27. While I understand Ms X remains unhappy with the Council’s approach and the situation with her neighbour, there was no fault in the way the Council has dealt with Ms X’s concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Ms X’s complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman