Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to properly investigate his concerns about noise and anti-social behaviour. We have found evidence of fault by the Council and upheld the complaint. We have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the provide staff training and pay redress to Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to follow the correct process when investigating reports of noise nuisance/ anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour. He also says the Council failed to follow through after serving a Community Protection Notice Warning (CPNW) and mishandled his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. Mr D has previously complained about how the Council dealt with noise nuisance issues to the Ombudsman. We completed that investigation in January 2023. As a result, my investigation looks at what happened from February 2023 to December 2023. Any events after that date would be for the Council to consider in the first instance under its complaints process.
5. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information provided by Mr D and his Representative. I asked the Council questions and examined its case records.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

8. Mr D previously complained to the Ombudsman about the Council failing to properly investigate reports of noise nuisance and ASB caused by a neighbour. In January 2023 the Ombudsman found there was no evidence to show the Council had correctly investigated Mr D’s case or considered the Community Trigger process. The Council agreed to liaise with Mr D to see if he wanted to raise a Community Trigger. Within two months of the case closing, it would also liaise with Mr D to identify when noise was caused by the neighbour and investigate it further by trying to witness the nuisance and consider installing a digital recorder (recorder).

Events I have investigated

9. On 14 February 2023 the Council sent Mr D noise nuisance log sheets to complete and return. Also, that month, the Council contacted Mr D to arrange installation of a recorder. At the end of the month the Chair of the Community Trigger Panel wrote to Mr D. The Panel was unable to respond to the points raised in Mr D’s trigger request because he was currently in the complaints process with the Ombudsman recommendations being pursued by the Council. Mr D says he never received that correspondence. On 2 March the Council installed a recorder at Mr D’s home. There was an understanding in the Pollution Team the recorder would be in place for three weeks and this was also communicated to Mr D. On 10 March Mr D told the Council the recorder had been removed after one week. The Council replied that there was evidence on the recorder, so it was removed. At the same time the Pollution Team noted that “action should be taken” by the Housing Team involved in the case. On 14 March an Officer noted the recorder at Mr D’s home had captured evidence of some noise which was sufficient to serve a CPNW. The Pollution Team asked the Officer dealing with the recorder why it had been installed for one week instead of three. The Officer said it was standard to install for seven days and this was enough time to get samples of noise.
10. On 23 March the Pollution Team served a CPNW on the neighbour to abate the noise nuisance. It also wrote to Mr D and said if the noise issues continued an Officer would need to witness the noise to take further action. Mr D should email the generic Pollution Team email if noise happened, and the Council would have a meeting to discuss the way forward. On 28 March the Council says an Officer visited the neighbour and discussed the CPNW. On 6 April the Pollution Team recorded that if it received an email from Mr D reporting noise an Officer would visit as soon as possible if the noise was occurring between 9am and 5 pm. The CPNW needed evidence to move forward, and the Pollution Team asked if actions had been taken by the Housing Team. Also, that month the Pollution Team sought advice from the Head of Environmental Health. It had served the CPNW but was still receiving reports from Mr D about noise happening at night. It believed the onus to act was now on the Housing Team. On 19 April Mr D emailed the Council details of noise happening including banging noises at night. The next day the Council confirmed to the Pollution Team that it should only log Mr D’s reports (and take no additional action) unless he called the Council before 5pm. The Council also stated it could not take action unless Officers witnessed the noise.
11. In May Mr D told the Council his neighbour was acting in a threatening manner and he had reported this to the Police. The Police had made a Safer Neighbourhood referral for him. On 12 May the Housing Team stated it had visited the neighbour in May and not witnessed a noise problem. I have not seen a contemporaneous note of the visit. In July Mr D continued to report noise to the Pollution Team using emails, the noise was mainly at night. On 17 July the Pollution Team asked the Housing Team what action was being taken because it was unable to take any further action in the case at that stage. On 3 August Mr D contacted the Council. He felt his case was not being correctly handled. He had asked to complain at the start of June, and this was ignored. The Council says it has no record of receiving a formal complaint request from Mr D at the start of June. Mr D’s MP also contacted the Council about his complaint on 9 August. On 21 August Mr D reported loud music by his neighbour. The Council said it would contact the neighbour.
12. Mr D came to the Ombudsman because the Council had failed to reply to his request to complain. On 7 September the Ombudsman asked the Council to ensure Mr D’s complaint was considered under the Council’s complaints process. No action was taken by the Council. On 13 September the Head of Environmental Health emailed the Pollution Team. He had tried to have the investigation passed to the relevant Housing Team. He understood the Pollution Team were not investigating the case because of the neighbour’s tenancy status. However, as the Pollution Team had served a CPNW it had accepted responsibility to investigate. The Pollution Team replied on 26 September they were frustrated the Housing Team had not progressed the case. It could enforce the CPNW if there was sufficient noise nuisance occurring during the daytime but the noise being reported was at night. Also, that day the Council says it contacted the neighbour about the noise reports.
13. On 29 October Mr D told the Pollution Team about further noise issues. The Pollution Team replied the next day. It said it could not take further action without witnessing a breach of the CPNW. It did not have an out of hours service so could only look at incidents happening during the daytime. If a noise happened between 9am and 5pm Mr D should contact the Pollution Team. Mr D said his emails had been ignored and he disputed having sent reports solely about nighttime noise. On 13 November the Pollution Team said that it received over 100 emails a day from the public and so could not immediately see Mr D’s emails. When they were received, they were forwarded to Housing Team. The next day the Pollution Team told Mr D it could not respond to every email. It referred all his emails to the Housing Team for action. It had asked a Pollution Team Officer to call Mr D at 5pm to see if the noise was ongoing. Later that day the Representative contacted the Council. She said nothing had happened with the Community Trigger process which started in January 2023. The problems were ongoing and not being resolved by the Council. The Council responded that Officers had previously visited and not heard a noise. If reports were made during office hours someone would come out. On 15 November a Pollution Team Officer noted they had spoken to the Representative. She felt the case was for the Housing Team rather than the Pollution Team and had declined a Pollution Team Officer visit because the noise was sporadic. Also, that day Mr D sent the Council links to a large volume of noise recordings covering the year.
14. On 16 November the Pollution Team told the Representative Mr D sent daily emails and it could not review each one. The case was for the Housing Team, and it was their responsibility to resolve. After the CPNW was issued, the case had passed to the Housing Team to deal with. However, in order to try and resolve the case the Council had asked a Pollution Team Officer call between 5 and 6 pm (when noise had previously been reported) to try and witness it. The Pollution Team also stated the next day to the Representative that Housing Officers had visited the site and not witnessed a noise issue. The Pollution Team could not take further action without evidence of a Statutory Noise Nuisance. It had agreed to install a recorder again to reassess the noise. There was a waiting list for the recorders. On 21 November the Pollution Team emailed the Representative again and explained why it needed to use a recorder and why Mr D’s home recordings were not eligible as evidence in any enforcement proceedings. Because the neighbour stated they had taken steps to minimise the noise the Council needed to gather additional evidence and it continued to offer a site visit and recorder installation. On 27 November the Complaints Resolution Officer, who was dealing with Mr D’s formal complaint, emailed the Officers involved in the case to provide Mr D with information about the Community Trigger process.
15. On 1 December Mr D emailed the Council the noise was still happening and sent a list of noise recordings. The Council provided him with a link for the Community Trigger process along with diary sheets. The Council asked Mr D to use the diary sheets rather than sending regular emails. Mr D queried why he was being asked to use diary sheets. On 15 December the Council responded to Mr D’s complaint which had been forwarded by the Ombudsman. It apologised for not investigating the complaint at the first stage of its complaints process and apologised for the delay replying. The Council said the Housing Team had worked with the neighbour to resolve noise issues. It said that following the previous Ombudsman investigation “I am sorry that…the training offered has not been followed. This is very disappointing and has been communicated to the Housing Initiatives Manager”. The Council referred to missed steps during the last six months and that, as a matter of urgency, the Council should validate/ evidence Mr D’s records of noise and ASB. In addition, he should be signposted to the Community Trigger process. The Council stated it was “very sorry the handling of your case…was disappointing. This is not the service you have a right to expect”. The Housing Team “did not progress your case in line with the ASB process”. Also, the Council failed to deal with the complaint. It offered to pay Mr D £350 for delay and time and trouble.

Events after my investigation

16. In 2024 the neighbour moved home.

What should have happened

17. The Council has told me that it believes complaints to the Council about noise nuisance, caused by a resident in a Council owned/ managed property, should be handled by the relevant Housing Team. The Pollution Team may offer to assist in its capacity to investigate whether there is a statutory noise nuisance. Where responsibility to lead on a case lies with the Housing Team but the Pollution Team has also investigated, the Council’s process guide says that “liaison between both departments is important”.
18. The usual process for handling a noise nuisance complaint is for a Pollution Team Officer to send the complainant diary sheets to complete and return. These allow the Council to see the type of noise being reported and when it occurs. If the Pollution Team considers there is likely to be an issue with noise from the diary sheet evidence an Officer will contact the complainant and the alleged perpetrator. The complainant will be advised to contact the Council’s Duty Noise Officer by using the generic Pollution Team email address so the Officer can witness the noise and assess if it is a statutory noise nuisance. If the noise occurs at regular times (within office hours) the Officer can make scheduled visits. The Council does not visit outside office hours. If the noise is short/ sporadic the Council can install a recorder. The Council must use its recorder rather than personal recordings made by a complainant. Personal recordings do not have the same evidentiary value if a case progresses to formal enforcement action. A statutory noise nuisance is assessed by the Pollution Team Officer, they will take account a range of factors including the type of noise, its duration and timing. If the Council decides there is a statutory noise nuisance it can consider enforcement action.
19. The Council’s Antisocial Behaviour Policy defines anti-social behaviour (ASB) as behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person. The policy lists various types of ASB including noise nuisance and verbal abuse/harassment/intimidation/threatening behaviour. The policy says Officers will decide what the appropriate action should be based on the information/evidence they have when the initial investigation is complete. The Council should contact complainants regularly to update them on progress and tell complainants when it feels there is no further action it can reasonably take.
20. The policy also says the Council may take both formal and informal action in response to a complaint of ASB and will decide the appropriate level of response on a case by case basis. The policy lists some of the main actions the Council will consider in managing ASB complaints including informal warnings, warning letters, a CPNW. A CPNW can be issued by the Council or Police where a person’s conduct is unreasonable/ detrimental effect on the quality of life for people in the locality. When the Council it is told by a complainant that a CPNW has not been complied with it should investigate further for evidence of additional noise nuisance/ ASB. If the Council is satisfied it has evidence of a breach of the CPNW it can take a range of actions including issuing a fixed penalty notice/ remedial work/ court order.
21. The Community Trigger process (which is also known as the ASB case review) allows members of the community to ask the Council, Police, Clinical Commissioning Group or Registered Social Landlords within the Borough to deal with persistent ASB. It says the process can be activated if the threshold is met. This is where the person complaining has made three separate qualifying complaints about anti-social behaviour in the previous six months and the complaints have not been appropriately addressed or there has been no action taken. The policy makes clear the trigger is designed to ensure the relevant bodies work together to try and resolve any reports about anti-social behaviour. A resident can ask for the Community Trigger irrespective of whether they have an active complaint against the Council.

Was there fault by the Council

22. There are several points of failure in this case.
23. The Council failed to correctly handle the Community Trigger process in February 2023. It wrongly told Mr D it could not take the matter forward because of his complaint to the Ombudsman which it was still dealing with. This is in complete contradiction to the policy set out on the Council’s website and a matter of concern that Officers handling Mr D’s request did understand the process. Because of the fault by the Council Mr D did not receive correct information about the Community Trigger process until the end of November. He lost an opportunity to pursue the matter at the start of 2023 solely due to fault by the Council.
24. The evidence shows me the Council was unclear at times about who should take the lead in this case, this confusion meant that Mr D was not clearly advised about who he should be contacting. For example, in March Mr D was told to email reports of daytime noise to the Pollution Team. The Council noted it would then visit as soon as possible to evidence the noise. However, in November the Council stated it was forwarding any emails from Mr D onto the Housing Team for action. I do not see any evidence to show when a decision was formally made about this shift from the Pollution Team leading on the case to it being the Housing Team taking charge. In September the Council had said, internally, that it was for the Pollution Team because it had served the CPNW. It seems to me there is a lack of clarity in this case about when decisions were made and whether they were communicated in a clear and timely manner to Mr D.
25. There is a lack of supporting papers to evidence actions in this case. The Council refer to having meetings about the case and carrying out site visits, but I have seen barely any contemporaneous records to verify what took place and what was discussed. For example, I asked about site visits to evidence if there was a daytime noise nuisance and the Council referred to a visit that took place in December 2021 rather than any visits in 2023. The Council also told me there were meetings to discuss the case, after emails from Mr D were received, however no notes were made. This means I am unable to say with any degree of certainty the Council followed the correct process or carried out a reasonable level of investigation, especially once Mr D told the Council the CPNW had been breached.
26. The Council has already accepted it failed to properly handle Mr D’s complaint. Mr D should not have had to wait until December to receive a response. That was only issued after he asked the Ombudsman to intervene. The Council acknowledged that training had not been followed but did not explain how these errors had occurred. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether or not Mr D experienced further noise nuisance or ASB after the CPNW was issued. That was for the Council to investigate and determine. The Council accepted in its complaint response to Mr D that it had missed steps in the investigation, and it needed to validate/ evidence the noise and ASB issues urgently. In its response to me an Officer also stated the “process has never been followed through clearly and [Mr D] is correct on that”. These failings are particularly disappointing given Mr D had already had a complaint about similar issues upheld by the Ombudsman. The Council had an opportunity to provide a much better service in 2023 and failed to do so.
27. In addition, I note there is still a training need for Officers in relation to the issues flagged up in this case. In response to my enquiries an Officer repeatedly referred to training gaps, in particular being “unclear” about key procedures, “there is a training issue” and “training was sought, however more was needed”. This shows to me that any training carried out in response to the previous Ombudsman investigation was insufficient.

Did the fault cause an injustice

28. I cannot hypothesise about whether the Council would have found additional evidence of noise/ ASB had it followed the correct process in 2023. However, the faults by the Council meant Mr D experienced unnecessary delays and lost an opportunity to progress the Community Trigger in February. In addition, due to the lack of clarity and supporting papers, there remains an uncertainty for Mr D about whether his noise reports were correctly progressed and what could have been the outcome.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. The Council offered Mr D £350 redress in its December 2023 complaint response for delay and time and trouble. After careful consideration of the case and the extent of the fault I asked the Council to carry out additional redress and it has agreed to:
• Pay Mr D an additional £150 for uncertainty and send him an apology letter within four weeks of this investigation ending.
• Identify what training needs staff in the relevant Housing Team and Pollution Team have arising from this case and to carry out that training. This should be done within two months of this investigation ending.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman