Summary: Ms X complained the Council shared information about her noise complaint with the perpetrator, resulting in increased noise and distress. Further, it delayed addressing her complaint. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it pays Ms X £100 for distress, £100 for time and trouble and writes to Ms X explaining its delay and any action to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her noise complaint in 2021. She says it gave information to her neighbour that she had raised a complaint and the noise then became worse. Her and her family were deprived of sleep due to the noise and felt intimidated by her neighbour’s actions.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. Ms X complained to us in March 2023, so matters arising prior to March 2022 are out of time. However, it appears the Council did not address her complaint about the data breach until recently. I therefore consider this good reason to exercise discretion.
3. The Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) is the appropriate body to investigate complaints about data breaches. However, as the Council has accepted fault I consider it appropriate to consider a remedy.
4. Insofar as Ms X may be unhappy about the investigation of her noise complaint, I note the Council decided the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance and closed the case in summer 2021. Ms X could have complained to us about this at the time if she wished and there is no good reason to exercise discretion. While Ms X says she was unaware how to pursue matters, I consider she could have sought third party advice if she wished.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
9. 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

10. I spoke to Ms X and I reviewed documents provided by Ms X and the Council.
11. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Noise nuisance

12. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 a council must take reasonable steps to investigate complaint of noise nuisance.
13. It is up to a council to decide whether the noise complained of amounts to a nuisance. If the council finds a statutory nuisance it must serve an abatement notice requiring the person to stop the nuisance.

Data Protection

14. The Data Protection Act 2018 is the UK’s implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation.
15. Everyone responsible for using personal data has to follow strict rules called ‘data protection principles’. They must make sure the information is:
• used fairly, lawfully and transparently
• used for specified, explicit purposes
• used in a way that is adequate, relevant and limited to only what is necessary
• accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date
• kept for no longer than is necessary
• handled in a way that ensures appropriate security, including protection against unlawful or unauthorised processing, access, loss, destruction or damage.

What happened

16. Ms X complained to the Council about noise from her neighbour.
17. In April 2021 the Council confirmed a complaint acknowledgement letter intended for her was sent to her neighbour. It apologised for the breach and said it was investigating how this occurred.
18. In March 2022 Ms X chased the Council for a response.
19. In December 2022 Ms X complained again. In summary:
• Her neighbour was even louder upon finding out she complained.
• The Council said it would investigate its breach but she had not heard further.
• She suffered the noise for a year before the landlord evicted her neighbour.
• She felt the Council had let her and her family down.
20. The Council responded in January 2023. In summary:
• It apologised for the breach and delay in addressing.
• It explained it did not update its address records correctly or check before sending correspondence. It had since spoken to both officers involved to ensure they followed the correct process and checks in future. It had also sent a reminder to all staff.
• In 2021 it closed the case because there was insufficient evidence to progress a case of statutory nuisance from the noise recordings. Further, the landlord said they had started eviction proceedings. It had received no complaints about noise since closing the case in the summer of 2021.
21. In comments on a draft decision Ms X said:
• She did not pursue a complaint about the Council’s investigation of noise nuisance in 2021 because of a lack of confidence and trust in the Council and not knowing how to pursue it further.
• The Council’s noise investigation was flawed as its noise recording equipment did not work properly and the Council refused to send an officer to witness the noise.
• She maintains the noise became louder due to the Council informing her neighbour of her complaint.
• The Council failed her and her children. It did not take her complaints seriously. The impact on her and her children was very distressing.

Findings

22. The Council accepts it shared Ms X’s information with her neighbour in error in early 2021. This is fault.
23. I cannot say with certainty the neighbour was noisier as a direct result of this fault, as opposed to any other reason. Further, the Council found the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance in any event. However, I accept Ms X would have suffered distress and uncertainty as to how her neighbour may react to her complaint and whether it did make things worse. This is injustice. I note the Council has already apologised and acted to prevent recurrence. However, I consider a further remedy is warranted.
24. The Council delayed addressing Ms X’s complaint of a data breach from April 2021 to January 2023. This is fault. Ms X was put to avoidable time and trouble in the complaints process. This is injustice. The Council has already apologised but it did not explain its delay or outline action to prevent recurrence.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. To remedy the injustice identified above the Council should carry out the following actions within one month of the date of my final decision:
• Pay Ms X £100 for distress and uncertainty;
• Pay Ms X £100 for time and trouble;
• Write to Ms X to explain its delay addressing her complaint and outline any action to prevent recurrence or say why it considers action unnecessary.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
27. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I find the Council at fault for sharing Ms X’s personal data with a third party and delay in addressing her complaint. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman