Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to handle the case of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour sufficiently. Ms X also complained about how the Council handled her complaints. Ms X also complained the Council failed to handle her Community Trigger review about anti-social behaviour correctly. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it handled Ms X’s noise nuisance complaint or the Community Trigger Application. The Ombudsman does not consider the Council’s fault in handling Ms X’s complaint caused her a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to handle the case of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour sufficiently. Ms X said the Council officer incorrectly recorded the noises heard from the noise recordings on her analysis.
2. Ms X said the Council handled her complaint poorly and failed to adhere to its complaints policy.
3. Ms X said the Council failed to handle her Community Trigger review about anti-social behaviour correctly and the Council does not have a policy for how it will handle Community Trigger reviews.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour complaints. I have also investigated the Council’s responsibility for the Community Trigger.
5. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about the Community Safety Partnership’s review of her Community Trigger. I have explained this within the section of this decision titled “Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate”.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)
8. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
9. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police or social housing providers. We also cannot investigate the actions of partnership bodies, such as Community Safety Partnerships, which include members we cannot investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have considered all the information Ms X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
11. Ms X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory noise nuisance

12. 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
13. 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.
14. 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 act to stop it. The Council must issue an abatement notice if it is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists.
15. If a person breaks an abatement notice they will be guilty of an offence. A person committing an offence is liable to a fine on conviction by a Court.

Council noise nuisance policy

16. When a person complains to the Council about noise nuisance it will record a person’s details and provide them with a reference number.
17. The Council will rank a person’s complaint as high, medium or low priority dependent on the situation. The information a person provides will help the Council decide the priority banding of a complaint.
18. For high priority complaints, the Council will acknowledge the complaint and arrange a site visit.
19. For medium and low priority complaints the Council will consider completing a site visit to witness the noise but may instead send noise diary sheets for a person to detail the noise nuisance experienced. Where diary sheets returned by a person indicate the potential for a noise nuisance the investigating officer may:
• Complete a site visit to investigate the noise.
• Include the person on the out-of-hours register.
• Install noise monitoring equipment into the complainant’s property or encourage use of the noise recording app.
20. Where the Council receives repeat complaints without resolution the investigating officer should investigate a matter to decide if there is enough evidence for the Council to take further action.
21. Where the Council decides a statutory noise nuisance exists it must serve an abatement notice.
22. If the abatement notice does not abate the noise nuisance and the Council can evidence a breach of the abatement notice the Council can take further enforcement action. The Council may send more warning letters, invite the perpetrator to interview under caution or prosecute the perpetrator. The Council needs to complete further site visits to evidence the noise nuisance to gather evidence to prove a failure to follow an abatement notice.
23. The Council may close a case if:
• A person withdraws their complaint.
• It has carried out informal action such as arranging mediation or sending a warning letter which has abated the noise nuisance.
• It has carried out formal action, such as an abatement notice, which has abated the noise nuisance.
• Its investigation found no statutory noise nuisance.
24. The Council must tell the complainant about closure of a case.

Anti-social behaviour case reviews (Community Trigger)

25. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced the right for victims of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to ask for an ASB case review. This is a formal review by relevant local bodies into the actions taken to deal with reports of anti-social behaviour. These reviews are also known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
26. The bodies collectively responsible for ASB case reviews, often referred to as Community Safety Partnerships, are:
• the local council;
• police;
• NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups; and
• social housing providers chosen to be part of the group.
27. The relevant bodies in each area must set threshold criteria for starting a review. If someone asks for an ASB case review the relevant bodies must decide whether the application meets the threshold and, if so, undertake a case review. If someone disagrees with a decision not to hold a case review, they can ask the relevant bodies to review the decision.
28. Relevant bodies must also publish details of the local review process.

Council policy on the Community Trigger

29. The Community Trigger review threshold in the Council’s area says a review will be undertaken if:
• The Council, or other relevant agency, has completed an investigation into the antisocial behaviour complained about.
• A person has complained about antisocial behaviour within one month of the behaviour taking place.
• A person has made three or more complaints of antisocial behaviour in the last six months.
• The person has raised complaints with a relevant agency such as the Council, local police or local registers social landlord.
30. If a Community Trigger meets the threshold criteria a minimum of three agencies will meet to complete a review. The review will create a decision about whether further action is needed. Regardless of the decision, the person who contacted about the Community Trigger will be sent a letter explaining the decision.
31. If a person is dissatisfied with the decision about the Community Trigger a person can escalate the matter to the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Council complaints procedure

32. The Council has a two-stage complaints procedure.
33. The Council will aim to resolve a complaint quickly on first contact before invoking its complaints procedure. If the Council decides it cannot resolve the complaint quickly and needs to investigate the complaint, it will move a complaint to Stage one of its complaints process.
34. The Council says it will investigate a person’s complaint at Stage one within 20 working days and will send its findings to the person.
35. If a person disagrees with the Stage one response, they can request progression to Stage two. The Council will complete a Stage two complaint response within 20 working days.

What Happened

36. On 11 May 2020, Ms X made a noise nuisance complaint to the Council. Ms X complained her neighbour and his partner argued loudly, her neighbour played loud music at night and made loud noise at night.
37. The Council logged Ms X’s complaint and called Ms X on 15 May 2020 to discuss the issues. The Council offered to send a warning letter to Ms X’s neighbour but Ms X declined. The Council sent Ms X noise diary sheets to complete and advised if these indicated a statutory noise nuisance it will look to witness the noise. The Council also contacted Ms X’s neighbour’s landlord to advise of the noise nuisance complaint.
38. Ms X reported noise nuisances to the Council on 7 June 2020 and 14 June 2020.
39. The Council spoke with Ms X on 18 June 2020 and agreed to send a warning letter to her neighbour. This warning letter advised Ms X’s neighbour it had received a complaint and would be investigating noise nuisance from his property.
40. Ms X spoke with the Council on 7 July 2020 who asked her to provide further diary sheets and use the noise app to make recordings. The Council advised it would be looking to install noise monitoring equipment when this became available.
41. Ms X made further reports of noise nuisance to the Council from 15 July 2020 to 12 August 2020. Council officers attended Ms X’s property on 15 July 2020 and 7 August 2020 but did not witness a statutory noise nuisance on either visit.
42. On 12 August 2020, the Council installed noise monitoring equipment into Ms X’s property. Ms X also told the Council on this date she had reported the issues to the police because she believed her neighbour’s actions were becoming anti-social behaviour.
43. The Council removed the noise monitoring equipment on 20 August 2020.
44. Ms X told the Council about a further incident she had reported to the police on 28 August 2020.
45. Ms X complained to the Council on 17 September 2020 and 25 September 2020 about noise nuisance from her neighbour. On both occasions Council officers attended Ms X’s property and found no statutory noise nuisance.
46. The Council completed its analysis of Ms X’s noise nuisance recordings on 15 October 2020. The Council’s analysis noted evidence of hearing noises but decided this did not amount to a statutory noise nuisance.
47. Council officers, a neighbourhood manager and Ms X’s neighbour’s landlord attended the property on 16 October 2020 to try to agree acceptable noise levels between the two properties. Ms X’s landlord wrote to Ms X following this meeting to advise it found no evidence of anti-social behaviour and the Council found no evidence of statutory noise nuisance. The landlord referred Ms X to mediation.
48. Ms X queried the results of the noise recording equipment with the Council on 26 October 2020. The Council responded to advise it found no evidence of statutory noise nuisance but agreed to book in further noise recording equipment for Ms X on 30 November 2020. The Council told Ms X to keep reporting noise issues to it.
49. Ms X applied to the Council for the Community Trigger on 27 October 2020. The Council reviewed Ms X’s application for the Community Trigger and decided Ms X’s application met the threshold. The Council told the relevant parties about Ms X’s Community Trigger Application.
50. The police discussed anti-social behaviour of Ms X’s neighbour with the Council and sent a warning letter to him on 29 October 2020.
51. Ms X provided further noise nuisance diary sheets to the Council and reported a noise nuisance on 6 November 2020. The Council attended Ms X’s property on 6 November 2020 and witnessed a statutory noise nuisance. On 12 November 2020, the Council told Ms X it had witnessed the statutory noise nuisance. The Council sent Ms X’s neighbour an abatement notice on 17 November 2020 requiring him to reduce the sound level of his music.
52. Ms X agreed to postpone installation of noise recording equipment following the abatement notice. Ms X continued to liaise with the Council about noise nuisance issues in November 2020 and December 2020.
53. The Council brought together all the documents about Ms X’s Community Trigger application on 3 December 2020. The Council liaised with the other relevant parties of the Community Trigger and arranged for a multi-agency meeting on 10 December 2020. The Community Safety Partnership managed the Community Trigger Review process from this point forwards.
54. On 23 December 2020, the Council agreed to install noise recording equipment into Ms X’s property again on 26 January 2021. Because of a cancellation, the Council installed the noise recording equipment on 6 January 2021 following agreement with Ms X.
55. The Council removed the noise recording equipment on 12 January 2021. The Council reviewed the noise recording equipment and decided the recordings did not indicate a breach of the abatement notice by 21 January 2021. The Council wrote to Ms X on 25 January 2021 to advise it found no breach of the abatement notice.
56. Ms X queried the analysis of the noise recordings with the Council on 27 January 2021 and sought a copy of the noise recordings analysis on 28 January 2021. The Council provided Ms X with a copy of the analysis on 4 February 2021.
57. Ms X complained to the Council on 9 February 2021 about the analysis of the recordings. The Council logged Ms X’s complaint on 17 February 2021.
58. Ms X chased the Council for a response to her complaint on 1 March 2021.
59. The Council confirmed it had logged Ms X’s complaint as a Stage 1 complaint and it would provide a response within 15 working days from 1 March 2021, by 22 March 2021.
60. Ms X complained the Council should be providing a response within 15 working days from 17 February 2021 and not 1 March 2021.
61. Ms X provided noise diary sheets to the Council on 18 March 2021. The Council offered Ms X installation of noise recording equipment.
62. The Council provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 19 March 2021. The Council said:
• The Council officers who complete the noise recording analysis will record what they hear on the analysis sheet.
• The Council offered to send the recordings to Ms X but advised she would need a calibrated device to listen to the recordings.
• It had issued an abatement notice on 16 November 2020 because of loud music.
• It had investigated Ms X’s concerns about noise nuisance and Ms X could have noise recording equipment installed again.
63. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at Stage 2 of its complaint process on 21 March 2021.
64. The Council offered Ms X noise recording equipment on 26 March 2021.
65. The Council sent Ms X its Stage 2 complaint response on 7 April 2021. The Council:
• Told Ms X that it had checked the noise recording equipment and found no fault with it.
• Explained the reason it takes down people’s details and the situations in which it will give contact details to people for a manager.
• Said it could not share information with Ms X about other people’s complaints.
• Apologised for the administration error when originally logging her complaint on 17 February 2021 which meant it did not handle the complaint in the correct timescales.
• Reiterated its offer for further noise recording and advised Ms X she could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) with her complaint.
66. Ms X responded to the Council on 9 April 2021. Ms X asked why the Council had not calibrated the noise recording device in the last six months. Ms X also asked for details about her neighbour’s complaints about noise nuisance and expressed concerns about a reoccurrence of logging the complaint incorrectly.
67. The Council responded to Ms X on 21 April 2021. The Council advised the calibration of the device should occur every two years. The Council told Ms X another member of staff had listened to the recordings and found no statutory nuisance. The Council reiterated its stance that it could not share other people’s complaints with Ms X. The Council advised the logging of her complaint incorrectly was a human error and not a system error and apologised for this.
68. Ms X provided further noise apps recordings to the Council. The Council listened to these noise recordings on 5 May 2021 and noted it could hear no audible noise. The Council again offered Ms X the recording equipment. Ms X declined the offer.
69. Ms X continued to provide the Council with noise diary sheets.

Analysis

Noise nuisance investigation

70. Ms X complained the Council failed to handle the case of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour sufficiently.
71. Ms X raised her first complaint with the Council on 11 May 2020. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in four working days and asked Ms X to provide noise diary sheets. This is the first stage in the Council’s noise nuisance policy.
72. From 11 May 2020 to 12 August 2020, Ms X liaised with the Council and provided noise diary sheets and reported incidents of noise nuisance. The Council kept records of Ms X's reports and agreed with Ms X to send a warning letter to her neighbour about the noise nuisance. The Council also agreed to install noise monitoring equipment into Ms X’s property.
73. The Council agreed to install noise monitoring equipment because the noise diary sheets indicated the potential for a noise nuisance to exist. The Council followed its policy by completing an assessment of Ms X’s complaints, completing site visits and installing noise monitoring equipment into Ms X’s property. I do not find fault with the Council.
74. While the Council was analysing Ms X’s noise recordings from the noise monitoring equipment it responded to Ms X’s further reports of noise nuisance by completing site visits. The Council’s response to Ms X’s reports of noise nuisance are consistent and in line with the Council’s policy. The Council found no evidence of statutory noise nuisance so took no further action. I do not find fault with the Council.
75. The Council analysed Ms X’s noise recordings and found no statutory noise nuisance. While the Council should have contacted Ms X to share its analysis before Ms X’s contact, I consider the Council overall completed the analysis correctly. I have addressed analysis of the noise nuisance recordings in further detail in paragraphs 79 to 85.
76. The Council continued to investigate Ms X’s concerns despite finding no statutory noise nuisance from the recordings. When the Council attended on 6 November 2020 it witnessed a statutory noise nuisance. The Council issued Ms X’s neighbour with an abatement notice in response to witnessing this noise nuisance. The Council has acted in line with its policy and I do not find fault.
77. Following Ms X’s request in December 2020, the Council agreed to install noise monitoring equipment into Ms X’s property again in January 2021. The Council installed the noise monitoring equipment on the arranged date, reviewed the recordings and found no evidence of a breach of the abatement notice. The Council wrote to Ms X to advise of the result of its analysis. The Council has again followed its process and I do not find fault.
78. Since the second analysis of the noise recordings, the Council has offered to install further noise recording equipment into Ms X’s property on several occasions. The Council has also accepted noise diary sheets and attended Ms X’s property to try to witness further noise nuisance. The Council has acted in line with its policy in completing further investigations into Ms X’s complaint, I do not find fault.

Noise nuisance recordings analysis

79. Ms X said the Council officer incorrectly recorded the noises heard from the noise recordings on her analysis.
80. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Neither are we a court, and so cannot determine or define the law.
81. The Ombudsman must decide if the Council has considered the relevant legislation and policies in making its decision. If the Council has considered the relevant policies and reached a suitable decision in line with these policies, the Ombudsman cannot find fault.
82. As detailed in paragraphs 70 to 78 the Council has followed its policies in investigating Ms X’s complaints about noise nuisance. While following these policies, the Council has installed noise recording equipment and analysed noise recordings twice.
83. The Council has demonstrated its analysis of the noise recordings for both sets of recordings. The Council officer will record what they hear on the recordings even if this does not match a person’s records on the corresponding noise diary sheets. The Council officer has provided detailed analysis of the noises they heard on the recordings. While Ms X may not agree with the analysis completed by the Council officer, the Council officer completed their analysis without fault.
84. The Ombudsman cannot question a professional decision when there is no evidence of fault in how it was made, unless it is considered unreasonable. The test for ‘reasonableness’ in administrative law is very strict. The courts have held that a decision made by a public body or its officers will only be unreasonable if it is: ‘So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.’ (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948])
85. I do not consider the Council officer’s analysis is one that no other sensible person could have arrived at. I do not find fault with the Council’s analysis of the noise recordings.

Complaint handling

86. Ms X said the Council handled her complaint poorly and failed to adhere to its complaints policy.
87. Ms X raised a formal complaint with the Council on 9 February 2021, but the Council only received and logged this complaint on 17 February 2021. In line with the Council’s complaint procedure it should have provided a Stage one complaint response to Ms X within 20 working days, by 17 March 2021.
88. The Council only acknowledged Ms X’s complaint following her chaser on 1 March 2021 and provided a complaint response on 19 March 2021. The delay in acknowledging Ms X’s complaint and failure to meet the Council’s complaint timescales is fault. While this is fault, given the Council only missed the complaint timescale response by two working days, I do not consider this caused Ms X a significant personal injustice.
89. Additionally, the Council has apologised to Ms X in both its Stage two complaint response and further correspondence on 21 April 2021 about the delays in acknowledging and providing the Stage one complaint response. The Council has explained to Ms X this delay was caused by a human error when logging the case. This apology and explanation from the Council is sufficient and there is nothing more the Ombudsman would consider the Council needs to do to reflect this delay.
90. Ms X made her Stage two complaint on 21 March 2021. The Council again had 20 working days to provide its response, until 19 April 2021. The Council provided its Stage two complaint response on 7 April 2021.
91. The Council’s Stage two complaint response is detailed and tries to address Ms X’s full complaint. When Ms X raised concerns about the Council failing to answer certain parts of her complaint on 9 April 2021, the Council provided a further response on 21 April 2021. This further response from the Council was additional to its complaint procedure but done to answer Ms X’s full concerns.
92. While the Council has delayed for two working days outside its timescales in responding to Ms X’s complaint, it has provided answers to Ms X’s questions and made suitable endeavour to address her concerns. The Council has also already apologised to Ms X for the delay. Overall, I do not find fault with how the Council handled Ms X’s complaint.

Community Trigger

93. I cannot consider how the relevant bodies considered Ms X’s Community Trigger review request, so I have restricted my findings to the actions of the Council when it was acting independently.
94. The Council must publish details of its Community Trigger procedure and provide a point of contact in an area which a person can use to make an application for the Community Trigger.
95. The Council detailed on its website a person can activate the Community Trigger through the police by contacting 101. The Council has provided details of the point of contact in its area, and I do not find fault.
96. The Council has also detailed on its website the threshold for review under the Community Trigger and the factors it will consider as part of the Community Trigger process. The Council has published sufficient details on its website of the Community Trigger process, and I do not find fault.
97. Ms X complained the Council does not have a policy for how it will handle Community Trigger matters. However, the Council has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its policy. I do not find fault with the Council.
98. Ms X applied for the Community Trigger on 27 October 2020. On receiving Ms X’s Community Trigger application, the Council determined that Ms X met the threshold criteria and notified the relevant parties. The Council has acted in line with its policy, and I do not find fault.
99. The Council brought together the relevant documents about Ms X’s Community Trigger application and arranged for the first multi-agency meeting on 10 December 2020. While this is slightly over six weeks since Ms X’s application, there are no timescales set out in the Community Trigger policy. I do not consider six weeks is too significant a timescale to warrant fault.
100. The Council took the relevant actions when receiving the Community Trigger application and ensured this was processed to the Community Safety Partnership. The Council was not at fault for how it handled Ms X’s Community Trigger application.

Back to top

Final decision

101. I have completed my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant personal injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

102. I did not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions and decisions made by the Community Safety Partnership relating to her Community Trigger.
103. This is because the Community Trigger review is completed by the Community Safety Partnership which is a partnership body of different organisations outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
104. Ms X can appeal the Community Trigger review to the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman