The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly investigate noise complaints made by her and against her in 2023. We found the Council followed the correct procedures and was not at fault.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council failed to properly investigate noise complaints made by her and against her in 2023.
Ms X said an environmental officer showed prejudice in the way they investigated a neighbouring complaint differently compared with the way they investigated her complaint. She said the Council then refused to investigate a complaint she made about the environmental officer’s handling of the cases.
Ms X said dog barking from a neighbouring property caused her distress. She felt bullied by the Council’s practices and suffered anxiety as a result.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)
What I have and have not investigated Our investigation focused on events from 2023. We did not investigate Ms X’s recent complaints about events in 2024. Ms X must raise these events with the Council first.
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
I also considered the Council’s response to our written enquiries, along with relevant law and guidance.
Ms 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
Statutory nuisance Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
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.
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.
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.
If a 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 issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
The Council’s noise nuisance investigation procedure When the Council receives a noise complaint it sends a standard letter to the complainant and the alleged perpetrator.
The letter to the alleged perpetrator will give details of the noise and ask it to stop, or the Council will consider formal action.
The Council will ask the complainant to provide evidence of the noise by either completing diary sheets or using the Council’s noise recording application, which the complainant can download onto their mobile phone.
The Council will then review this evidence and may carry out a site visit, but this is not always needed.
If the Council considers a statutory nuisance is likely to exist, it will investigate further by installing a digital recorder in the complainant’s home. This enables the Council to gather evidence of a sufficient strength to use in future court proceedings.
In cases where a complainant stops reporting noise, the Council will end its investigation.
What happened I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
Ms X contacted the Council on 22 May 2023 about alleged noise nuisance from a neighbour’s dogs. I will refer to this later as complaint one.
The Council sent its standard letters to Ms X and her neighbour on 6 June 2023, acknowledging the noise complaint. It asked Ms X to send evidence of the noise using diary sheets or the Council’s noise recording application.
Ms X’s neighbour denied the allegation about noise from their dogs. They said they did not have dogs permanently at their home.
The Council then received a noise complaint from one of Ms X’s neighbours on 8 June 2023. The neighbour alleged noise was coming from a device in Ms X’s garden. I will refer to this later as complaint two.
The Council sent its standard acknowledgement letters to Ms X and the neighbour on 13 June 2023.
The neighbour then sent the Council a recording of the noise. The Council considered this had the potential to be a statutory nuisance.
A Council officer visited the neighbour on 27 June 2023 to confirm whether the noise was coming from Ms X’s garden. The officer also witnessed the noise.
Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council on 30 June 2023 about harassing and malicious communications sent by the officer investigating complaint two. She said the officer breached her privacy by looking over her fence, but did not visit the site when investigating complaint one. She said this was discrimination.
The Council said, by law, it must look into all complaints about noise to assess whether it is a statutory nuisance. It appreciated Ms X was unhappy, but said it wrote to her to explain the investigation procedure. It said its complaints procedure cannot stop a nuisance investigation and it did not intend to take further action on Ms X’s formal complaint.
The Council wrote to Ms X about compliant two on 4 July 2023. It said it may install a digital recorder to gather evidence of the noise her neighbour reported. It also said this could lead to enforcement action.
The Council contacted Ms X on 7 July 2023 for more information about complaint one. Ms X sent the Council photographs of her neighbour walking two dogs.
In view of Ms X’s formal complaint, the Council decided to progress her case to the next stage of its procedure, which was to offer digital recording equipment in her home.
The Council contacted Ms X on 14 August 2023. It said a digital recorder should be available by mid-September. Ms X sent the Council some recordings of dogs barking taken on her mobile phone.
Ms X sent more recordings of dogs barking on 21 August 2023. She also said she could not access the Council’s mobile phone recording application.
On 22 August 2023, Ms X said the dogs were barking at 06:30. She was unhappy the Council wanted her to wait until mid-September for digital recording equipment.
The Council said mid-September was when the equipment would become available. It gave Ms X further instructions on how to access its mobile phone recording application. It also gave her a link to some technical support. It said if she still cannot use the application, she can complete diaries instead.
Ms X asked why she had to wait until mid-September. She said she was waiting for the Council to send her more diary sheets.
The Council said it only had a small number of digital recording kits and demand was high, so it kept a waiting list. It also said it tested its noise recording application, and it was working. It suggested Ms X update the application. It said it would send more diary sheets, but Ms X can complete diaries electronically or using plain paper.
Ms X asked why the Council did not put her on the waiting list for digital recording equipment months ago when she first reported the noise. She repeated the Council’s recording application was not working and sent a screenshot as confirmation. She said she was going to complain to the Ombudsman due to the Council’s lack of action.
The Council said it looked at Ms X’s screenshot and she did not enter the correct details to access the application. It offered to help Ms X with this if she gave her telephone number.
Ms X said she followed the correct instructions but could not access the application. She said the Council failed to resolve her complaint.
The Council offered to install a digital recorder on 15 September 2023. Ms X said the Council was too late. The Council said it cannot investigate the complaint without using digital recording equipment and it would close the case if Ms X did not respond.
The Council closed complaint one at the end of September 2023. It also closed complaint two, because Ms X’s neighbour did not report any further noise from Ms X’s garden.
Analysis Ms X said the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint about noise nuisance from a neighbour’s dogs. She said the Council did not act on her reports. The Council told us Ms X did not initially send any diaries or recordings, and the recordings she sent later were only of limited value in proving a statutory nuisance. I have not seen records showing the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s evidence. However, I found Ms X did not suffer any significant injustice. That is because the Council moved Ms X’s complaint on to the next stage of its investigation process anyway, by offering her digital recording equipment. Ms X chose not to take the Council up on its offer and decided to pursue a complaint to the Ombudsman instead.
Ms X complained about a lack of progress in the Council’s investigation. She said the Council was too late in offering digital recording equipment. The Council was prompt in responding to Ms X’s reports about noise and sending its standard letters in early June 2023. Ms X then needed to send further evidence. She struggled to use the Council’s noise recording application, but she had the option of completing noise diaries, and she was able to send recordings from her mobile phone. The Council then asked Ms X for more evidence in early July 2023, which she provided. Ms X then made a formal complaint in August 2023. While I can appreciate the process did not run as quickly as Ms X wanted, I have not seen evidence of significant delays or inaction by the Council. Also, as above, in response to Ms X’s formal complaint the Council moved the matter on to the next stage of the process, so I do not consider there was any significant injustice.
Ms X questioned why the Council did not put her on the waiting list for digital recording equipment straight away. That is not how the Council’s procedure works. It does not place anyone on the waiting list straight away. First it needs evidence to suggest a statutory nuisance, in the form of diaries or application recordings. It then uses digital recording equipment to gather evidence strong enough to use in court.
Once the Council moved Ms X’s noise complaint to the digital recording stage, it made the equipment available within about four weeks, as it had a waiting list. I do not consider this to be a significant delay and the Council was not at fault.
As above, Ms X had difficulty using the Council’s noise recording application, so I considered whether the Council should have looked to make reasonable adjustments. I found the Council offered Ms X help and support to use the application. It also confirmed, as per its procedure, she did not need to use the application and could complete noise dairies instead. I therefore did not find the Council at fault. And, the Council bypassed this part of its procedure by offering Ms X digital recording equipment, so there was no injustice.
Ms X also complained the Council showed bias towards a neighbour in the way it investigated complaint two, about noise coming from her garden. She said the officer investigating complaint two sent a threatening letter and invaded her privacy.
The Council sent the same standard letters to both parties when investigating complaints one and two, so there was no different approach there.
Where the Council took a different approach investigating complaint two was when an officer carried out a site visit. That was because they needed to discover where the noise came from. There was no fault in that approach.
The Council then sent Ms X a letter about its findings and advised her it may take formal action if the noise continued. I appreciate Ms X felt distressed by the letter, but the Council was following procedure and correctly advised her about potential next steps. The Council was not at fault.
Ms X was unhappy the Council refused to take her formal complaint about the environmental officer further. I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s response. As the Council confirmed, the environmental officer had a duty to investigate complaint two and did so in line with the Council’s procedure.
I found the Council followed its procedure for investigating noise nuisance complaints. It also acted in line with Government guidance. I have not seen evidence of significant fault by the Council, nor have I seen evidence Ms X suffered significant injustice because of any failings by the Council.
Final decision
I completed my investigation. I found the Council followed the correct procedures and was not at fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman