Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about noise from his neighbour. Mr Y says this caused stress and distress, and affected his ability to sleep and work. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. It failed to clearly communicate with Mr Y about what action it would or could take, or keep him updated. To remedy the injustice this caused Mr Y, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty this caused. The Council also agreed to review the way it communicates with complainants as well as how it communicates with other bodies involved in resolving reports of noise nuisances.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Mr Y, complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about noise from his neighbour.
2. Mr Y says the noise kept him awake at night. He says the noise caused him stress and distress, which affected his health and his ability to work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr Y and the Council. I spoke to Mr Y about his complaint.
8. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include: loud music, barking dogs, noisy neighbours, rowdy pubs or noise from industrial, trade or business premises.
10. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

11. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
12. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
13. Councils can 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.
14. If the council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay service of an abatement notice for a short period, to attempt to address the problem informally.
15. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court is persuaded they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to draw a complainant’s attention to their right to private action under section 82.
16. The Ombudsman published guidance on ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’, setting out a benchmark of the standards we expect when we investigate the actions of councils. These include being service-user focused by informing service users what they can expect and what the organisation expects of them; and being open and accountable by stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions along with keeping proper and appropriate records.

What happened

17. In April 2020, Mr Y contacted the Council to complain about his neighbour, Mr B. His neighbour was a tenant of an arm’s-length management organisation (ALMO) responsible for the management, maintenance and improvement of a neighbouring council’s housing stock.
18. Mr Y complained he thought Mr B was growing an illegal substance due to a low, loud noise of a fan. He said he feared for his own personal safety and wellbeing.
19. On the same day, a Council officer in its community safety unit responded to Mr Y. It forwarded Mr Y’s concerns to the police and told Mr Y he should contact the police as the Council cannot do anything about potential criminal matters. It said it had told his neighbour’s ALMO about Mr Y’s complaint.
20. Mr Y contacted Mr B’s ALMO to report a noise nuisance complaint about Mr B. He said Mr B was playing loud music throughout the day until 3am each morning. Mr Y said Mr B was also shouting loudly one night and banging an object against his window. Mr Y asked the ALMO to rehouse Mr B as he felt threatened by Mr B after Mr B incorrectly blamed him for calling the police. Mr Y copied the Council into this email.
21. Mr Y contacted the Council again to say he had been in touch with the police who said the noise nuisance issue was the Council’s responsibility. Mr Y said he was now sleeping on his sofa as noise from Mr B’s property was keeping him awake.
22. A few days later, Mr Y emailed the Council again to report loud music and noise from Mr B’s property. He said his bedroom was no longer habitable as the noise was coming from directly above this room during the night.
23. The Council replied to Mr Y to say:

• his concerns had been forwarded to its environmental crime team who would deal with noise nuisance issues; and,
• the Council’s community safety unit would work with his neighbour’s housing management organisation and the police regarding Mr Y’s allegations that his neighbour was growing an illegal substance.

24. In May, the police contacted the Council for an update on Mr Y’s reports of noise nuisance. The police explained Mr Y had been in touch twice that month to complain about noise from his neighbour that was taking place day and night. The police had told Mr Y to report any noise issues to the Council.
25. In June, Mr Y complained to the Council and Mr B’s ALMO about the handling of his noise nuisance issues. He sent a log of recent noise incidents. Mr Y’s letter was sent through solicitors he had instructed.
26. In July, Mr Y chased Mr B’s ALMO for a response. It followed this up with the Council.
27. The next day, the Council replied to Mr Y’s complaint. It said:
1. it was sorry for the delay in responding. It explained this was due to staff mainly working from home due to COVID-19;
2. in June, a noise abatement notice had been served on his neighbour by its environmental health team after a Council officer witnessed a statutory noise nuisance. It said this notice had been sent to Mr B’s ALMO and neighbouring council involved in his housing;
3. no further noise nuisances had been reported to its environmental health team, but it was working with the ALMO and neighbouring council following Mr Y’s notification of the breach of the notice. Together, they would consider whether to take legal action against Mr B for breach of the tenancy conditions;
4. Mr Y’s concerns about the threats to his life that he’d reported had been forwarded to the police as this was a matter for the police; and,
5. it would update Mr Y once it had received an update from the neighbouring council.
28. At the end of July, Mr Y complained to the Ombudsman.
29. In September, Mr Y chased the Council for an update. He complained that he was still unable to sleep in his bedroom due to the noise. Mr Y asked the Council to respond to his request for Mr B to be housed elsewhere.
30. Several days later, the Council replied to Mr Y. It said Mr B was housed by a neighbouring council, which was actively looking for alternative accommodation for Mr B. The Council provided Mr Y with the contact details of the neighbouring council and said it would be best placed to answer his questions.
31. Mr B moved to alternative accommodation in the same month.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

32. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about noise from his neighbour.
33. We cannot investigate any aspect of Mr Y’s complaint that concerns the action taken by the arm’s-length management organisation (ALMO), which manages the home of Mr Y’s neighbours on behalf of the neighbouring council. This is because we do not have powers to investigate complaints about any council’s management of its social housing (see paragraph five above). We can, however, consider Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his noise nuisance complaint.
34. The Council’s environmental health team has responsibility for dealing with statutory noise nuisances. If it finds a statutory noise nuisance, it has a duty to serve a noise abatement notice.
35. In Mr Y’s case, a Council environmental health officer witnessed a statutory noise nuisance in June 2020 and decided to serve a noise abatement notice on Mr Y’s neighbour. This is in line with what is expected of the Council. I, therefore, do not find the Council at fault here.
36. However, I find the Council was at fault in how it communicated this decision to Mr Y and in how it responded to his previous correspondence on the noise issues. This is for the following reasons:
1. the Council failed to clearly explain to Mr Y what he could expect and provide the criteria for decision making. For example, during initial contact with Mr Y in April 2020, the short form of a Council department was used (the Council’s community safety unit team told Mr Y it forward on his concerns to the “enviro crime team”). Such information should be provided in full so it is accessible and easily understood by all members of the public. During the initial contact with Mr Y, it did not explain to Mr Y the circumstances in which it would consider sending a general warning letter to the alleged perpetrator of the noise or escalate matters to serving a noise abatement notice. The Council has accepted that, while it provided Mr Y with details of its out of hours service in May 2020, it failed to follow this up with its standard letter to complainants detailing how the case will be investigated. Based on the evidence I have seen, it is also unclear how the Council kept Mr Y up to date on any action it took in relation to his reports of noise nuisance based on its noise nuisance policy;
2. Council communications with Mr Y were further complicated by it failing to properly explain the involvement of his neighbour’s ALMO in the process. It is likely that, without a clear, central point of contact, this led to Mr Y complaining unnecessarily to a number of different parties involved;
3. a Council community safety officer said on a number of occasions that it would look into matters that overlapped with the police. It was unclear from this correspondence what action, if any, Mr Y could expect the Council community safety team to take, and this contributed to a sense of uncertainty;
4. Mr Y complained to the Council in June 2020. I have seen email correspondence that shows there were delays in the Council checking letters received by post due to COVID-19 and staff being unable to access to this facility. The Council has apologised to Mr Y for the delay in responding and explained why. I find this suitably remedies the injustice caused by this delay. The Council’s response also explained to Mr Y it had served a noise abatement notice on his neighbour in June. However, it did not explain whether this had been served because of his reports of noise or for any other reason, such as another neighbour complaining about noise caused by Mr B. More generally, it is not clear from Council records what action it took against Mr B as a result of Mr Y’s complaint (as opposed to action taken because of other neighbours’ complaining about the same issues). The Council has accepted this was partly due to it logging Mr Y’s complaint under someone else’s complaint in error; and,
5. before the Council responded to Mr Y in July, I have seen various emails between two Council departments and Mr B’s ALMO on who should respond to Mr Y’s complaint. Later internal emails between Council departments show it did not consider Mr Y should direct his complaint to it. The Council should have established a clear agreement with Mr B’s ALMO on what issues it can look at that Mr Y had raised. This should have been communicated to Mr Y as it was responsible for dealing with his reports of noise nuisance.
37. This poor communication is fault and is not in line with our principles of good administrative practice. The breakdown in communication, understandably, caused Mr Y frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. To remedy the injustice Mr Y has experienced, within four weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr Y in writing; and
2. make Mr Y a payment of £200 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty its poor communication caused him. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
39. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has also agreed to make the following service improvements:
1. review how it communicates with complainants to ensure it records and responds to each noise nuisance complaint on an individual basis, and is clear about the action it is proposing to take around reports of noise nuisance;
2. review its noise nuisance policy to make sure any cross-border issues do not drift and staff are clear on who is responsible for what actions when other organisations or councils are involved. This should include clear directions on how staff should ensure any confidential information received about the alleged perpetrator of the noise is not shared with the complainant; and,
3. share this decision with relevant members of staff.
40. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

41. Subject to further comments by Mr Y and the Council, I have completed my investigation. I have decided to uphold Mr Y’s complaint as there was fault by the Council causing him injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions, which are suitable ways for it to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman