The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it investigated a complaint of noise nuisance. The Council followed its procedures to gather evidence to decide whether the noise was a statutory nuisance. It was unable to complete this investigation because Miss X did not agree to the Council installing noise monitoring equipment.
The complaint
Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess the noise from a neighbouring property as a statutory noise nuisance. She says this meant the Council did not take appropriate enforcement action, which caused her distress and significant disruption to her enjoyment of her home.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I wrote to Miss X to explain what I was investigating.
I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
I considered the Council’s published guidance on dealing with environmental nuisance complaints and its policies for dealing with enforcement and offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) says councils must look into complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance. This may include noise from a premises.
There is no fixed point when something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on council officers to gather evidence.
The Council’s website says when it receives a complaint of noise nuisance it will ask the complainant for a diary of the noise. When the Council has this diary, it will write to the other party and ask for their help in reducing the noise.
The website says other investigations may be carried out and, if it decides the noise is a statutory noise nuisance, the Council will consider serving a noise abatement order. The Council would need to gather evidence to a criminal standard of proof.
The Council’s policy on dealing with offences under the EPA says that, if there has been no improvement in noise levels, officers should gather more evidence using noise monitoring equipment (NME).
The Council’s enforcement policy says officers should always act independently, objectively, and fairly. It also says officers should consider a range of options to resolve the matter without action including giving advice.
What happened Miss X complained to the Council in April 2021 about noise coming from a neighbour’s premises. The Council asked her to complete diary sheets, and she returned these to the Council along with recordings she had made of the noise.
The building next door to Miss X is a residential care home for the elderly. The Council wrote to the care home and spoke to a manager to see if they could help with reducing noise levels.
After a short period, the Council contacted Miss X to see if noise levels had improved and Miss X explained they had not. The Council then asked if she would allow it to install NME. Miss X initially declined this, but later agreed and the Council placed her on the waiting list for equipment to become available.
During this time the Council visited the care home and gave further advice about reducing the noise. The Council also spoke to other health professionals about the options available to deal with the complaint.
In August the Council contacted Miss X to arrange to install the NME and explained this would help it to decide if the noise amounted to a statutory noise nuisance.
Miss X did not offer a date for equipment to be installed. She wrote back to the Council saying she believed she had already given the Council enough evidence for it to decide the noise was a statutory noise nuisance.
The Council wrote to Miss X and said it could not progress her case without evidence from the NME.
My findings
The law, and the Council’s policy, say the Council should look into complaints about noise and, where it can, try and get the cooperation of those involved in making the noise. It says where no improvement has been made, it should gather evidence and decide if the noise is a statutory nuisance. The policy also expects Council officers to act independently, objectively, and fairly.
The evidence in the Council’s case notes shows it followed its policy by writing to the care home and trying to resolve the matter. It followed this up at the care home with other proposals while it was waiting for NME to be installed.
The Council was aware of the recordings of noise that Miss X had made but was following its policy when it said it wanted to install NME. It explained to Miss X that it would close her case if she did not allow this. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated this complaint of noise. The Council has subsequently repeated its offer to open the case provided Miss X supports the investigation.
Final decision
The Council was not at fault in how it investigated a complaint of noise nuisance.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman