Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s reports of noise nuisance. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has failed to act on her reports of noise nuisance from her neighbours.
2. She wants the Council to soundproof its tenant’s walls. Or soundproof her walls using materials she has purchased. She also wants compensation for the anti-social behaviour she has suffered in the form of noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
7. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
8. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits.
9. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
10. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
11. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.
12. Miss X told the Council she was experiencing noise from her neighbours who are Council tenants. She says the noise includes barking dogs, a noisy parrot, shouting at children and snoring.
13. The Council visited Miss X’s home. During the visit officers told Miss X that shouting at children from room to room, and the occasional dog bark or parrot noise is not considered anti-social behaviour. They advised some noise is to be expected when living in a semi-detached property. The Council confirmed it would not install soundproofing in her home. It also confirmed the neighbouring property conforms to all appropriate building standards.
14. The Council has confirmed it will continue to consider any evidence Miss X submits and offered to help her install and set up a noise application.
15. I understand Miss X says she is traumatised by the noise from her neighbours. However, Council officers have visited her home and considered the information she has provided. It is satisfied it has not witnessed a statutory noise nuisance. Officers have also advised Miss X of her right to ask the magistrates court to decide whether her neighbours are creating a statutory noise nuisance.
16. We will not investigate this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The Council has taken the action we would expect to investigate the noise report. Whether the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance is a judgement for the environmental health officer to make using their professional judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her reports of noise nuisance to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman