Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with his concerns about noise nuisance from events held at a hall which is close to his home. He also complains about the Council’s poor communication with him. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with his concerns about noise nuisance from events held at a hall which is close to his home. Mr X also complains about the Council’s poor communication with him on the matter.
2. Mr X says the way the Council has dealt with the matter has caused him distress, anxiety, frustration and the time and trouble complaining to the Council and waiting for it to properly deal with the alleged noise nuisance. Mr X also said as a result of the ongoing noise nuisance, he has decided to move out of his property which has caused some financial strain.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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

7. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2021. This is because I needed to consider the whole period to make a meaningful investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I also considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
9. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory nuisances

10. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’ such as noise from premises.
11. 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.

12. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers 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.
13. 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.
14. If a council decides a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice requiring the perpetrator to stop. The Environment Protection Act 1990 provides that where the person responsible for the nuisance cannot be found or the nuisance has not yet occurred, an abatement notice shall be served on the owner or occupier of the premises.
15. If a council decides that the noise made does not amount to a statutory nuisance it can continue to use informal intervention to try to solve the problem. Examples of such action may include writing to the person causing the nuisance or suggesting mediation.

Key events

2021

16. Mr X moved into his property in April 2021.
17. Mr X started experiencing some disturbance from events held at a hall close to his home. Mr X said the venue held events every weekend and up until 1am.
18. In November 2021, Mr X first raised his concerns about the alleged noise nuisance with the Council. Mr X also said he believed the hall did not have a valid premises licence. He asked the Council to provide him with details of the hall’s premises licence.
19. In November and December 2021, Mr X reported three noise nuisance incidents to the Council. The Council visited the hall premises on each of the three occasions Mr X reported the incidents. The Council engaged with and informed the event organisers about the noise nuisance complaints it received from neighbouring properties. The Council witnessed audible music and it asked the organisers to stop and/or reduce the sound levels during its site visits.

2022

20. In January 2022, Mr X formally complained to the Council, and it issued its response a month later. The Council explained how it responded to the three noise nuisance reports Mr X submitted in 2021. The Council said it had informed its licencing team to check whether the hall’s premises licence was valid for the activities that were held at the hall. It advised Mr X to continue to report any noise concerns so the Council could investigate the matter further.
21. In April 2022, Mr X raised his noise concerns with his Councillor. He expressed his frustrations about how the Council had not taken appropriate actions to deal with the noise reports he submitted to it. Mr X also complained about the Council’s lack of response to the licencing concerns he raised about the hall.
22. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council wrote to Mr X the same day to arrange an out of hours visit to assess the noise levels within his property. The Council said Mr X confirmed the noise had stopped at the time it contacted him. The Council also chased its licencing team about its lack of response to Mr X’s licencing concerns.
23. The licencing team confirmed:

• the hall had a club premises licence for activities between 22:00 and 01:00 on Friday and Saturday (alcohol consumption only)
• it contacted the premises about the noise concerns from the hall and confirmed the licence had expired
• it informed the hall it must apply for a new licence and it must not organise any licensable activity on its premises until a valid licence was granted.

24. In May 2022, the Council said it objected to some temporary event notice applications to hold events at the hall premises. But it said the licence sub‑committee granted one of the applications because it was satisfied with the steps the applicant proposed to take to mitigate noise at the event.
25. Between May and November 2022, Mr X continued to submit noise nuisance reports to the Council.
26. The Council attempted a visit to Mr X’s property in May 2022 after he submitted a noise nuisance report. And then in June 2022, it successfully conducted a site visit to assess the noise levels within Mr X’s property. The Council found the noise did not amount to statutory noise nuisance because the music from the hall was barely audible within the habitable rooms in his property. Mr X said he requested, and the officer promised to send him a copy of the site visit assessment/outcome.
27. The hall submitted its application for a new premises licence. The Council invited and received written representations from Responsible Authorities and Interested Parties. A licencing sub-committee hearing was conducted to consider the representations received. The Council and the police set out some conditions which the hall premises agreed to take to mitigate any noise concerns. The hall’s premises licence was granted in November 2022. The permitted opening hours of the premises were between the hours of 08:00 to 23:00 (Monday to Thursday and Sunday) and 08:00 to 00:30 (Friday to Saturday).

2023

28. In February 2023, the Council visited the hall premises to set up a sound limiter which the hall installed following its new licence. This was to reduce the level of noise from the hall. The Council also visited Mr X’s property to assess, and it confirmed the noise levels at his property was not audible after the sound limiter was set.
29. Mr X reported further noise nuisance incidents to the Council. It conducted out of hours site visits in March and April 2023 upon receipts of Mr X’s reports and found there was no statutory noise nuisance. The Council also confirmed the sound limiter was in use at the hall premises during its visits.
30. Mr X chased the Council for its site visits’ outcomes and for a copy of the hall’s premises licence. He asked the Council the next steps of action it planned to take about the ongoing noise he was experiencing from the hall’s events.
31. The Council tried to call Mr X on a couple of occasions to update him on the matter, but it said he did not respond. The Council wrote to and advised Mr X it would visit his property to assess any noise nuisance within habitable rooms when he experienced further disturbance. It said it would then provide a report as to whether the licensed premises constituted statutory noise nuisance. The Council also said it would revisit the hall to re-set the sound limiter. It provided Mr X with its licensing team’s contact details for any licensing matters and advised he could make a formal complaint.
32. Mr X made another formal complaint to the Council. After the Council issued its stage 1 response letter, Mr X replied to it with further questions in early June 2023 about ongoing disturbance and the hall breaching its licencing conditions. He also said the Council failed to send him the June 2022 site visit outcome as it promised to.
33. The Council said it replied to Mr X’s further questions on 25 June 2023, but Mr X did not receive the response letter until 1 August 2023. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s poor communication with him, and he asked the Council to escalate his complaint.
34. In its responses, the Council explained all the steps it had taken to assess and deal with the alleged noise nuisance from the hall premises. The Council also:
1. confirmed it found no statutory noise nuisance in relation to the events held at the hall premises when it conducted site visits to both Mr X’s property and the hall premises
2. apologised its staff had promised to send Mr X a written outcome of the June 2022 site visit
3. explained its officers verbally inform residents about site visits’ assessments and said it had reminded staff of the need to manage residents’ expectations about assessments
4. included its June 2022 site visit’s outcome
5. apologised it held an incorrect telephone number for Mr X which was why it was unable to successfully contact Mr X with updates. It confirmed it had amended its records with his correct contact details
6. confirmed it needed to revisit the hall premises to re-set the sound limiter and the Council said it would contact Mr X to further discuss the disturbance issues
7. would arrange a visit to better assess any live activities held at the hall premises
8. said its licensing team would provide Mr X with a prompt response about any alleged contravention of the hall premises licence.
35. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and how it had dealt with his noise nuisance complaint. Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
36. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it is happy to look into the sound limiter setting at the premises again in collaboration with Mr X.

Analysis

37. The Ombudsman’s role is to review council’s adherence to procedure in making decisions. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information and given clear and cogent reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it.
38. I find no fault by the Council with how it dealt with Mr X’s concerns about the alleged noise nuisance from the hall premises near to his home. The Council took reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’ in 2021 and 2022. The Council liaised with the hall premises management, conducted site visits to Mr X’s property and the hall premises and it took actions to mitigate the noise levels from the hall. Based on its site visits and assessments, the Council found there was no statutory noise nuisance in relation to the events held at the hall premises. I find the Council properly investigated Mr X’s complaints of noise nuisance; therefore, I do not have grounds to question its decision that there was no evidence of statutory nuisance.
39. I note the Council took additional steps in 2023 when Mr X continued to report ongoing disturbance from the hall. The Council set up a sound limiter at the hall premises, conducted more site visits and maintained there was no statutory noise nuisance. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Mr X’s ongoing concerns.
40. However, I find the Council was at fault for:

• its delays with investigating Mr X’s initial concerns about the hall’s premises licence. Mr X first raised his concerns in November 2021 and the Council did not investigate the matter until April 2022 when he complained to his Councillor. This was a total of 5 months delay. This was fault but it caused no injustice to Mr X. This is because the Council did not establish a statutory nuisance when it investigated the matter.
• its poor communication with Mr X. The Council failed to provide Mr X with updates on the alleged noise nuisance because it held an incorrect telephone number for him.
• wrongfully informing Mr X it would send him a written copy of its June 2022 site visit assessment/outcome. Also, its delays with providing Mr X with the Council’s site visit outcome despite him chasing it repeatedly.
• its delays in responding to Mr X’s June 2023 correspondence. There was no evidence to show the Council responded to Mr X on 25 June 2023. The Council did not issue its response until 1 August 2023. This was approximately two months later.
• its failure to contact Mr X to further discuss the ongoing disturbance from the hall premises, its proposal to revisit the hall to re-set the sound limiter and to re-assess live activities held at the hall premises.

41. The Council’s faults as identified above cause Mr X distress, uncertainty and the time and trouble chasing the Council for updates on the matter. It also raised Mr X’s expectations the Council would investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Mr X and make him a symbolic payment of £200 for the injustice caused to him by the Council’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• contact Mr X to discuss the Council’s offer to further look into the sound limiter setting at the hall premises in collaboration with Mr X
• by training or other means remind staff of the importance of responding to residents’ correspondence in a timely manner. This is to ensure noise nuisance issues are dealt with effectively to prevent complaint escalation
• review the Council’s communication strategy and processes between the teams dealing with noise nuisance complaints and licencing matters. This is to ensure the Council provides residents with seamless and efficient service
• provide the Ombudsman with evidence to show the Council has completed the actions in Paragraph 34 (points c, f, g and h). If the Council has not completed these actions, it should ensure the actions are carried out within two months of the final decision and provide us with evidence of completion.

43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I find evidence of some faults by the Council leading to injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman