Summary: The Council properly investigated Mrs B’s reports of noise from her neighbours and problems with building work. The Council’s website was not clear that it has powers to tackle noise from premises under antisocial behaviour (ASB) legislation. This has not impacted on Mrs B as it is unlikely the Council would have used ASB powers. However, the Council has agreed to review its website so that it is clear that it will consider its ASB powers to tackle noise from premises.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about how the Council dealt with her reports that her neighbours were causing her distress and causing damage to her home by their noise and building works.
2. Mrs B says that as a result of the Council’s lack of action, her home has been damaged, and her physical and mental health has deteriorated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered the information provided by Mrs B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered all comments received before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

Building Control

6. Councils have a very important role in ensuring buildings are safe for people to use. Their duty is to protect the public, rather than the interests of private individuals. They have extensive powers to protect the public, ranging from checking building works for compliance with building regulations, and requiring or carrying out emergency works to make buildings safe.
7. Most building work requires building regulation approval. Building regulations set out requirements and guidance that builders and building owners are required to follow and consider. The purpose of the regulations is to make sure buildings are safe for those that use them or live around them.
8. A certificate of building regulations approval can be granted by councils acting as building control authorities, or by independent ‘approved’ inspectors. Councils employ building inspectors to carry out this work.

Statutory Nuisance

9. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises.
10. 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 property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
11. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
12. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
13. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides 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 tell complainants about their right to take private action.

Antisocial Behaviour

14. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
15. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced six powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:
• the power to issue a community protection notice (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a set length of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which a council, or other agencies, can apply for);
• a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and
• the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.

What happened

16. This is a summary of the main events. I have not set out in detail everything that has happened.
17. Mrs B first started to report problems with her neighbours to the Council in November 2022. She told the Council that noise from her neighbours was disturbing her and their building work was causing damage to her home.

Building Control

18. I have seen the Council’s case notes from its building control service. The Council advised Mrs B to contact its building control department about the building works. She contacted it January 2023. The Council visited and found there were no works which the neighbours should have notified it of, and so there was no basis for the Council to inspect or get involved with the works. It told her that any damage by her neighbours was a private matter between them, and she could contact her insurers for help or advice.
19. Mrs B contacted the Council again in October 2023 as her neighbours had carried out more work. The Council visited the home again. It advised Mrs B that her neighbours had re-roofed their house. This work was subject to building regulations and so the neighbours should have notified the Council. The neighbours made a retrospective notification to the Council. It inspected the work and signed it off for building control purposes.
20. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Mrs B’s reports that work by her neighbours was damaging her house. The Council investigated Mrs B’s reports by visiting her neighbours to check whether the work was notifiable for building control purposes. Where the work was subject to building regulations, the Council ensured that the neighbours made the correct notification, and inspected the work to sign it off. Where the work was not notifiable then the Council was right to tell Mrs B that it could not take action.
21. Mrs B is concerned about sound insulation, but the Council has explained that the property was built before building regulations about sound insulation were brought in, and so it could not take any action in this regard.

Noise Nuisance

22. The Council asked Mrs B to keep a log of her neighbours’ noise, and it wrote to both parties. Mrs B sent the noise logs to the Council in mid- December 2022. The Council considered Mrs B’s log but decided that the noise she was reporting was normal domestic living noise to be expected in an older, poorly insulated property, and would not be a statutory nuisance. However the Council wrote again to the neighbours.
23. Later that month, Mrs B sent the Council photos and videos of the noise occurring and the cracks in the walls. The Council considered the videos but again decided that this was normal living noise, and it was difficult to determine where the noise was coming from.
24. The Council’s environmental protection officer first tried to visit Mrs B towards the end of December 2022. Mrs B was not home, and the Council arranged another visit for early January 2023. I have seen the environmental protection officer’s notes of the visit. These set out the noises they could hear (use of the stairs, doors, and toilet), and their conclusion that this was daily living noise and not a statutory nuisance. They advised Mrs B that the cracks in her walls had not been caused by noise from the neighbours’ noise.
25. Following further noise reports from Mrs B, the Council considered using noise recording equipment. However, it decided that this would not be effective. The Council has explained that it based its decision on its visit to the property where it heard normal domestic noise. I also note that Mrs B’s logs and videos did not suggest the noise had changed significantly since the officer had visited.
26. The Council told Mrs B that she could take her own civil court action for noise nuisance or damage to the property.
27. Mrs B contacted the Council again in September 2023. She again sent in photos and videos. The Council’s case notes show that it properly considered the noise shown in the videos. However, the Council found the noise to be similar to that they had witnessed at the house. The Council asked Mrs B to complete noise logs so that it could be sure of the problems she was experiencing, but when she did not do this, it reviewed the file and closed the case.
28. It is clear that Mrs B is finding the situation extremely difficult on a daily basis. However, there is no fault in how the Council investigated Mrs B’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbours. It was clear about its remit and advised Mrs B accordingly. The Council properly considered all the information Mrs B gave it, and approached the neighbours as well as asking Mrs B for more information. It visited Mrs B’s home to witness the noise and based its decision that there was no noise nuisance on all the evidence it had. It is open to the Council to close the case and not to install noise monitoring equipment having considered all the information it had.

Antisocial Behaviour

29. Mrs B, throughout her contact with the Council, mentioned that she felt bullied and harassed by her neighbours. The Council told her that she should contact the Police about this. The Council liaised with the Police who visited Mrs B and found that the issue was centred on the noise and damage to the property rather than intimidation or harassment as such.
30. The Council did not consider whether it had ASB powers in relation to the neighbours’ behaviour on the basis of noise or harassment. The Council does not have an ASB policy but referred me to its website which sets out how it will deal with different situations.
31. The Council’s website says that it will normally consider noise from domestic or commercial premises under statutory noise nuisance legislation and not as ASB. The Council has explained this is why it did not consider its ASB powers with regard to Mrs B's reports.
32. The lack of clarity is fault by the Council. The Council may decide that a report of noise and other disturbance from a house or commercial premises is best investigated as a statutory nuisance, but it should also be clear that it will consider whether it has powers under ASB legislation to tackle this.
33. In Mrs B’s case, it is unlikely that the Council would have a basis for using ASB powers, and so its failure to consider this did not cause Mrs B injustice. For this reason, I have not recommended that the Council take action on Mrs B’s case. I have however, recommended it review its information about how it will consider reports of noise from properties.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. The Council has agreed that it will within three months of the date of this decision:
• Review its website to make clear when and how it will consider its ASB powers when investigating noise from domestic and commercial premises.
• Ensure that the revision to the website is shared with relevant staff and they are reminded that ASB powers are applicable to complaints about noise.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council but this did not cause Mrs B injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman