Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled Ms B’s complaint about noise from her neighbour’s dogs. It caused delays, failed to install noise monitoring equipment after saying it would do so, and failed to contact her for almost four months after its most recent site visit. It has agreed to apologise to Ms B and offer her a symbolic financial remedy for her injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, says the Council failed to deal with her noise complaint – about a neighbour’s dogs barking – properly. She says it ignored her concerns, did not consider available evidence, and refused to put mitigation measures in place. She also says the Council failed to deal with the issue within the correct timescale.
2. Ms B also says the Council has since reopened her case but, at the time of her complaint to the Ombudsman, she had not received an email about this from the officer responsible (despite the officer saying they would email her).
3. Ms B says she has suffered distress from the noise, and from the extended period in which the Council has failed to take action. She wants the matter resolved, and an apology and compensation from the Council to recognise her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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. I considered information from Ms B and the Council. Both 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 workflow for investigating noise complaints

7. If the Council receives a complaint about noise which does not appear complex, and in which there appears no risk of significant harm and no repeat offences, it will send a letter to the alleged offender asking for the behaviour to stop. It will also send a letter to the complainant, asking them to keep a diary.
8. After 14 days, the Council will assess the noise evidence. If there is not sufficient evidence to take formal action, it will consider options, such as:
• Close the case, as there is insufficient evidence to proceed.
• Extend the evidence-gathering period.
• Write another letter to the alleged offender.
• Discuss the case with a manager.
9. If there is sufficient evidence to proceed after the 14-day period, the Council will serve a ‘community protection warning’ on the alleged offender. It will also update the complainant and start further evidence-gathering (such as site visits or noise recording).
10. A supervisor will review the case within three weeks. They will decide whether to there is enough evidence to serve the offender with a ‘community protection notice’. If not, the Council will either continue gathering evidence or will close the case.

What happened

11. Ms B first reported noise from her neighbour’s dogs in November 2022. The Council asked her to complete a ‘noise diary’. It also sent a letter to her neighbour telling them it had received a complaint.
12. Ms B completed the noise diary, and, around two weeks later, provided this to the Council. She noted regular (albeit not continuous) barking from her neighbour’s property.
13. The Council emailed Ms B in early December (a month after her complaint), saying it would visit her neighbour that week.
14. Two weeks later, the Council conducted two visits to Ms B’s neighbour. Officers sat outside the property for over 30 minutes but witnessed no noise.
15. At the end of December, Ms B reported that the barking dogs were still a problem. She said the noise had caused her an anxiety attack on Christmas Day. She said the barking was random and not at set times, which could explain why the officer had not heard any barking during the visits.
16. The Council visited again, and spoke to Ms B’s neighbour, who said the dogs were only left on their own for three hours each week. The Council officer told
    Ms B that he would need to speak to his manager to decide how to proceed.
17. In mid-January 2023, the Council visited Ms B’s neighbour and observed a dog barking at people in the street through the window. The officer noted that a potential solution could be to block the dog’s view out of the window.
18. In early February, the Council issued a community protection warning to Ms B’s neighbour. This included requirements that Ms B’s neighbour:
• Started suitable dog training to minimise the noise nuisance.
• Did not leave their dogs unattended for more than two hours at a time.
19. The Council said the warning would be reviewed after six months.
20. Following this, Ms B told the Council that the situation had improved a lot, but she still had concerns that it will get worse again.
21. The Council told Ms B that noise monitoring was not currently an option, so it would close the case. It said noise monitoring could possibly be an option in future. It also said it would review its community protection warning every month.
22. In mid-March, Ms B reported noise problems again. The Council’s officer acknowledged the report and said he would speak to his manager.
23. Ms B heard nothing more from the Council for six weeks, when she chased the Council for a response. It said it would install noise monitoring equipment the following week (early May).
24. The week after the Council was due to install noise monitoring equipment it contacted Ms B again. It said it now planned to install the equipment the following week (mid-May), “subject to [it] being available”.
25. The Council did not install noise monitoring equipment the following week. It said this was because the equipment was in use somewhere else. However, it did serve an ‘abatement notice’ on Ms B’s neighbour. The notice said the Council had received more complaints about dog noise, and it was monitoring the situation with a view to taking formal action to prevent further noise.
26. At the end of June, Ms B told the Council that – since the abatement notice – the noise had ‘decreased dramatically’ but the dogs still barked at night. She said she was unhappy with how the Council had handled her case (including its failure to install noise monitoring equipment).
27. The Council told Ms B that noise monitoring equipment was not an option earlier in the year, but now it was. It said she should let it know if she wanted the equipment installing as this was her only option for evidence-gathering.
28. Around two weeks later, having had no response from Ms B, the Council closed her case. Then, after she made a complaint about the service she had received, it reopened it (in late July).
29. In early August, Council officers visited Ms B’s neighbour. They knocked on the door and the dogs barked, “though not excessive[ly] and [it] stopped very quickly”. They asked another neighbour about the noise, and the neighbour reported that the property was much less noisy than it used to be.
30. The officers then visited Ms B. One of the officers knocked on her neighbour’s door while the other officer was in Ms B’s house. The latter officer recorded that, “I could hear a dog barking but again [it was] not excessive”.
31. The Council agreed to listen to noise recordings Ms B had made. It did so in early September, but decided the noise was not excessive.
32. Towards the end of November – after I had made enquiries of the Council – it contacted Ms B to discuss her case. Ms B says she met the Council in December, and it will be installing noise monitoring equipment in January 2024.

The Council’s view on the complaint

33. The Council acknowledges that there was a delay in dealing with Ms B’s case, because the officer dealing with the case was unaware of the Council’s internal process for booking noise monitoring equipment. It says guidance has now been provided to all staff on how to use the relevant spreadsheet.
34. The Council says it does not use ‘abatement notices’ anymore; instead, it uses community protection notices, which have conditions and no end date. If the notice is breached, the Council can fine or prosecute the offender.
35. However, the Council accepts that it erroneously served an abatement notice on Ms B’s neighbour in May 2023, rather than a community protection notice. It says the abatement notice will be retracted; however, if there is further evidence of noise nuisance the Council will serve a community protection notice.
36. The Council says it visited site four times in an eight-month period and did not hear excessive noise on any visits.
37. However, the Council accepts that, after reopening the case in July, Ms B received no further communication until November (after I had made enquiries). It says this was because of confusion about who was meant to contact Ms B.

My findings

38. Much of what the Council did in response to Ms B’s noise complaint was done without fault. It visited the site several times, took reasonable steps to try and witness the noise, recorded its findings, and issued a community protection warning to Ms B’s neighbour. This was all done in line with its procedure.
39. However, the Council was at fault for:
• Taking a month after Ms B’s noise complaint (rather than the 14 days required by its procedure) to decide to conduct further evidence-gathering.
• Failing to book noise monitoring equipment, either because of a misunderstanding about how to book it, or a general lack of availability.
• Telling Ms B that it would review the community protection warning monthly, but then not doing so.
• Not taking any action for six weeks after Ms B reported noise problems again (in mid-March 2023).
• Issuing an incorrect notice to Ms B’s neighbour in May 2023.
• Failing to contact Ms B or progress her case after visiting her and reviewing evidence in August and September 2023.
40. Not all these failings would necessarily meet the maladministration threshold in and of themselves. And not all caused Ms B an injustice – for example, although the Council issued an incorrect notice to Ms B’s neighbour, the notice appeared to have the desired effect (for a while, at least).
41. However, taken together these failings paint a picture of a case which has been mishandled. And there is still no conclusion to Ms B’s noise complaint (whether to her satisfaction or not) over a year after she first made it.
42. The Council is still investigating this issue, and it should continue to do whatever investigation it feels is appropriate. But it should also provide remedies to Ms B to recognise the injustice she has experienced up to this point.

Back to top

Agreed actions

43. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:
• Write to Ms B and apologise for how it handled her noise complaint.
• Make a payment of £500 to recognise the distress she likely experienced from delays to its handling of her case. This also takes into account the efforts she made in trying to get a resolution from the Council.
44. Within two months, the Council has agreed to send us an action plan which sets out how it will ensure similar mistakes do not happen again.
45. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Final decision

46. The Council was at fault for how it handled Ms B’s complaint about noise from her neighbour’s dogs.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman