Summary: There is no fault by the Council. The Council has investigated complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour but determined that the noise from children playing and doors banging is not a statutory nuisance.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains the Council’s investigation of a complaint about noise nuisance has been inadequate and there has been delay carrying out related works. Miss X says the noise from her neighbour is affecting her family’s well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the papers submitted by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her.
5. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
6. Miss X and the organisation 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

Key facts

7. Miss X complained about loud noises from her neighbour in the property above from September 2023. She moved into the ground floor property a few months before.
8. The Council visited Miss X and spoke to her neighbour in October 2023.
9. Miss X made a further complaint to the Council (a stage 1 complaint) by email. The Council replied that the noise it had witnessed was domestic noise (children playing and doors banging) which it would not take enforcement action over. The officer had noted some issues with the flooring and intended to conduct a noise comparison test.
10. The noise comparison test was carried out in November 2023. This concluded that inadequate flooring and a fire door may have been responsible for the banging noises. The officers said the noise was not a statutory noise nuisance and there was no evidence it was intentional. The environmental health officer wrote to the housing department to ask if the floor in the neighbour’s flat could be rectified.
11. The flooring in the neighbour’s flat was replaced in May 2024. The neighbour also explained that a leak from her flat to Miss X’s flat was being investigated. The case was closed on 14 May 2024, by a letter to Miss X.
12. Miss X made a complaint about the noise in June 2024. The Council reopened the case. As Miss X did not send in further evidence or make further complaints, the case was closed.

My analysis

13. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
14. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision that the noise from her neighbour is not a statutory noise nuisance. Miss X believes that her neighbours are making the noise deliberately and that this is antisocial behaviour. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when making its decision. There is no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
15. In making its decision, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance, information from Miss X, her neighbour and its own policies. The Council visited Miss X and her neighbour and listened to the noise. It also arranged for repairs to flooring, although Miss X said to me on the telephone that this made no difference. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making the decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman