Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to investigate her complaints about her neighbour’s noise nuisance properly. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has failed to investigate her complaints about her neighbour’s noise nuisance properly. She believes her neighbour has friends at the Council and that has influenced the quality of its investigation. She says she feels harassed, distressed and that personal items have been destroyed because her neighbour continually slams doors.
2. Miss X wants the Council to apologise for not responding to her request for help.

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. 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

5. I read Miss X’s complaint to the Council and its complaint response.
6. I considered the Council’s case records of its investigation into Miss X’s noise complaint.
7. Miss 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

8. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) places a duty on councils to investigate any complaints of ‘statutory nuisance’. Statutory nuisance is a term commonly applied to the impact of noise from a property. For a noise to amount to a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property
• Injure health or be likely to injure health
9. There is no set level at which noise becomes a statutory nuisance. The Council’s role is to make a judgement considering several factors such as the activity, locality, time of day, frequency and duration of the noise.
10. The Council is required to investigate complaints of noise nuisance. It will gather evidence to find out whether the noise is causing a statutory nuisance. If it finds the noise is a statutory nuisance it must take action to stop it.

How the Council investigates noise nuisance

11. In the Council’s policy it states it will respond to complaints of noise nuisance within three days of it receiving the complaint. It allocates an investigating officer, who will contact the complainant to understand the nature of the noise. If they believe the described noise might be a statutory nuisance the Council investigates.
12. The Council asks the complainant to keep a noise log to record the noise for two weeks. The Council will then decide whether further action is needed. That might include installing noise monitoring equipment into the complainant’s house.
13. The Council’s policy states, “The investigation of a noise complaint may at some point require the Council to take legal action in a criminal Court where the case must be proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Evidence of nuisance will therefore need to be gained from within the complainant’s premises”.

What happened

14. Miss X emailed the Council in July 2020 stating her neighbours continually slammed their doors. She said that caused her house to shake and her dogs to bark. The Council sent Miss X diary sheets to complete.
15. Miss X returned her diary sheets within the next fortnight. She also sent the Council emails about the door slamming.
16. The Council wrote to Miss X’s neighbour on 10 August. It explained it had received a complaint about noise nuisance caused by door slamming and asked them to reduce or eliminate the noise. It wrote to Miss X shortly after and said it needed to complete an investigation by installing noise monitoring equipment. It said there was a twelve-week waiting list for the equipment. The Council did not send those letters.
17. Miss X sent the Council frequent emails about the door slamming. She also said she had not received the letter from the Council. The Council sent the letters to her and her neighbour at the end of August. Miss X emailed the Council on 1 September to confirm she had received it. The Council also emailed Miss X and said it considered noise monitoring equipment the best way to capture the noise nuisance as opposed to an officer call out response because of the sporadic nature of the noise nuisance.
18. Miss X continued to email the Council. She said her neighbours were talking loudly outside her house in the morning. The Council added this complaint to its ongoing investigation. It asked her to complete diary sheets.
19. The Council wrote to Miss X at the start of November to arrange installation of the noise monitoring equipment. Miss X responded and said because of the COVID-19 pandemic, she did not feel comfortable with someone coming into her home. She asked the Council to install the equipment after 2 December. The Council reassured Miss X it would wear protective equipment in her property and adhere to social distancing.
20. The Council contacted Miss X on 4 December and asked it could install the noise monitoring equipment. Miss X said she wanted it installing over Christmas week. The Council responded and said it could not provide it for that specified period. It offered to install it on 8 December. Miss X agreed to that.
21. Miss X contacted the Council on 8 December and cancelled the installation of the noise monitoring equipment. She believed her neighbours knew the Council were installing the equipment so the Council would not get an accurate reflection of the noise. She again asked the Council to install it over Christmas or the start of January.
22. Miss X continued to email the Council most days about the door slamming.
23. The Council said it offered to install the noise monitoring equipment on 21 January 2021, but Miss X did not respond.
24. The Council wrote to Miss X on 23 February advising it had received a report of noise nuisance about her.
25. Miss X subsequently complained that the Council had failed to install noise monitoring equipment despite her asking it to. She said she had banged on her neighbour’s wall in response to their noise. Following that complaint, she sent the Council further emails alleging Environment Health was giving her neighbours information.
26. The Council responded at the start of March. It said it had sent her neighbours the standard letter after it received her report of noise nuisance. It advised her not to bang on the walls of her property.
27. It said it had offered noise monitoring equipment on three occasions and that if she still wanted it installing to contact the Council to arrange. It said it was the last time the Council would offer this as without her cooperation they were unable to help her further.
28. Miss X sent further emails alleging improper conduct by the Council. It responded on 11 March. It strongly refuted the allegations. It directed her to its complaint response and asked her to contact it by 19 March to confirm if she wanted noise monitoring equipment installing.
29. Miss X wrote a further email of complaint to the Council in April. She again made allegations about a relationship between the Council and her neighbours. In the Council’s final complaint response, it explained there was a short delay in it sending out the initial letter to her neighbours about the noise nuisance. It explained that was an oversight and not evidence of a connection between the Council and her neighbours. It said if she had substantive evidence about her other allegations, she should provide it. It did not uphold her complaint about how it had investigated noise nuisance.

My findings

30. The case records show that after receiving Miss X’s diary sheets, the Council decided it needed to complete further investigation to substantiate the noise nuisance.
31. For the Council to decide whether the noise Miss X complained of is a statutory nuisance it needs to witness it so it can make an independent judgement.
32. The case records show the Council offered to install noise monitoring equipment in November and December 2020 and Miss X turned this down. The Council also offered the equipment further in January 2021 and in its complaint response in March 21. The Council offered to install the equipment four times. Although Miss X wanted it installing specifically over Christmas week, the Council’s contact with her shows it installs the equipment when the equipment is free. The Council was not at fault.
33. There was a delay between the Council agreeing to install the equipment and the equipment’s availability. The Council explained the delay to Miss X was a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and increased reporting of noise nuisance complaints. Given the circumstances, I do not consider the delay fault.
34. Miss X has made allegations about the Council and its relationship with her neighbours. There is nothing to substantiate these allegations. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was no fault in how the Council investigated Miss X’s complaints about noise nuisance. Therefore, I have completed my investigation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman