Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to resolve a noise nuisance problem. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council failing to take action against the landlord of the flat above his own over noise nuisance from plumbing in the shared ceiling floorspace.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he has suffered from noise disturbance from pipework through the ceiling of his flat since he purchased it in 2020. He made complaints about the plumbing noise in 2020 and the Council investigated the complaint. It told him that the noise was not due to any statutory nuisance caused by the landlord or occupant but that it was due to insufficient insulation in the shared floorspace/roofspace.
6. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s decision that it could take no action under the Environmental protection Act. He said that the landlord of the flat above was negligent and refused to carry out work. He also believes that he is the victim of the noise problem and is not responsible for any works to resolve it. He made a further complaint to the Council.
7. The Council inspected the property under the Housing Act 2004 provisions and assessed it under the Housing Health and Safety Ratings System (HHSRS) risk assessment criteria. It decided that the noise nuisance from the plumbing was a hazard and served a hazard awareness notice on Mr X and the landlord as they are jointly responsible for ensuring there is sufficient insulation to prevent excess sound transmission.
8. Mr X says it is unfair that he is considered to be responsible at all as he believes he is the victim of the landlord’s negligence. The Council says the powers related to the HHSRS require it to notify all the parties responsible for improving the insulation in such cases. The notice has no statutory or criminal sanctions and is a means of seeking an outcome for both parties. If Mr X believes the landlord is solely responsible for the nuisance and the work, then he would have to consider taking a civil case against him.
9. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means the Ombudsman will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to resolve a noise nuisance problem. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman