The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs C said the Council failed to respond adequately to her complaints about noise and antisocial behaviour by her neighbours. She also said the Council wrongly served her with a community protection notice warning without having sufficient evidence to do so. The Council was not at fault. It took steps to investigate Mrs C’s complaints and had sufficient evidence to issue a warning to her.
The complaint
The complainant, who I have called Mrs C, says the Council was at fault for: A failure to investigate allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance she made against her neighbours, and for serving her with a noise/ASB warning without the evidence to do so.
Mrs C says the Council’s fault has caused her injustice as it has failed to control noise made by her neighbours and has wrongly given her a warning for ASB.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. A late complaint is one made more than 12 months after something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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 spoke to Mrs C and considered the information she had provided. I then wrote an enquiry letter to the Council requesting further information. I considered all the material I had gathered.
Mrs C and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should happen Anti-social behaviour On-going anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) such as the inconsiderate making of noise may require intervention by councils, police and registered social landlords.
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on councils to take action to combat ASB. Councils will have a team to respond to and investigate complaints about ASB, liaising with the police and other agencies as necessary.
Councils can discharge this duty using informal intervention such as mediation. They can also use the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the case of noise nuisance. In more serious cases, they can use powers derived from the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
What should a good ASB investigation look like?
There is no formal ‘process chart’ for an ASB investigation. Officers should handle each case according to its merits, with a mind to the severity of the alleged behaviour, whether it is frequent or ongoing, and the potential harm to the victims.
Community protection notices In this decision, to help with clarity I have used the following acronyms: Community protection notice warnings (‘warnings’) Community protection notice (‘CPN’) One important tool used for controlling ASB is a CPN. These were introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, (‘the Act’). The Act says councils can issue a CPN, “if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality and the conduct is unreasonable”. (Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, 43(1)) A CPN can require a person or body to stop doing specified things, to do certain things, or to take reasonable steps to achieve specified results. (Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, 43(3)) Both councils and police have the power to issue CPNs. Before they do so, they must issue a Community Protection Notice Warning (‘CPW’). This must state that, unless the person’s conduct ceases, a CPN will be issued. (Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, 43(5)) A CPW or CPN need not be used to prevent something illegal. The behaviour only needs to have “a detrimental effect”. The standard of proof required is “reasonable grounds” to believe the behaviour is occurring.
Before issuing a warning, the issuer should speak to local people about the impact of the alleged ASB. They should gauge the evidence. They should also make a judgment as to whether the behaviour is unreasonable and warrants the issue of a warning.
Should the behaviour complained of continue after the period set out in the warning, the council, police or social landlord involved can issue a CPN. They can also arrange for informal intervention such as mediation instead.
What happened During the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, people worked at home. During this time, Mrs C made various complaints about noise from properties near her house in particular from a house in a nearby road where, she says, there were many noisy parties.
In the first week of June 2021, Mrs C made a report of a noise nuisance to the Council. The Council sent her diary sheets and asked her to record details and return them. She made a further complaint ten days later and another a month later in mid-July 2021 when, she said, the noise had gone on all day and night.
The Council responded but Mrs C she said she was going abroad and could not discuss the matter with the Council. Ten days later, Mrs C again called the Council saying she had argued with her neighbours. She also requested an update on her previous complaint.
Mrs C reported noise again a month later in mid-August 2021. She again requested action on her previous noise reports. The Council issued a CPW to one of Mrs C’s neighbours because of concerns about noise.
The Council has provided records which showed that, over the same period, three of Mrs C’s neighbours made noise complaints about her primarily about dogs barking at her house though on one occasion at least because of loud music.
On 25 September 2021, Mrs C, dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to her noise reports, made a formal complaint to the Council. She sent evidence which, she said, showed that she had made numerous calls to the Council’s out-of-hours noise hotline. She sent recordings of noise.
A senior officer, Officer O, began an internal investigation into Mrs C’s complaint. At around this time, Mrs C refused to allow a visit from an environmental health officer to her home. Officer O wrote to Mrs C on 7 October 2021. He explained that, in order to take action, the Council needed evidence. He said the recordings she had did not show where the noise recorded had come from. He said that, as the Council had recently issued a warning to the house in question, and there had been no reports of noise since, he did not intend to take further action though he said he would consider any further evidence she sent.
Later in October 2021, Officer O wrote to Mrs C again. He said there was no evidence of any further noise coming from the house in question but there had been several complaints of noise made about Mrs C in the last year including in the last month. He therefore said that, if matters did not improve, he would issue a noise abatement notice against her. Later in the month, the Council issued a warning against Mrs C for continuing noise at her property.
Mrs C responded to Officer O saying she was unhappy with being warned as she had been responsible for only one incident of noise whereas she had been complaining about her neighbours for years.
Mrs C escalated her complaint to stage two. She did not provide details of why she disagreed with the Council’s stage one response but, instead, cut and pasted some points from the Council’s website into the response: Did not answer all the points you complained about (if so, please say which ones); Failed to take into account information you provided in support of your complaint; made conclusions based on incorrect information; and Failed to carry out an action that would resolve your complaint.
In November 2021, Mrs C wrote to the Council saying she had “forwarded multiple emails that list a series of raised issues”. The Council asked her to send details but she refused saying she had already sent them.
In December 2021, after a delay during which Mrs C chased the Council for a response to her Stage two complaint, the Council responded. The reviewing officer said Mrs C had not answered the Council’s requests for details of her complaints so the officer had read the file and reviewed the documents. He said: Mrs C had made a number of complaints about one particular neighbour. The Council had not witnessed a nuisance but had issued an informal warning to the property and had had no further complaints since.
In October 2021, the Council had received a number of complaints about Mrs C. Officers visited Mrs C’s house and issued a warning to her as the officers had witnessed a noise nuisance.
Mrs C had made a number of allegations against neighbours but these were historical allegations which the Council was not able to investigate. Officers had to witness the noise to make a finding. The Council had issued a warning against one neighbour but could take no further action unless there was evidence of further disturbance. The Council could not use the audio and video files she had sent as evidence because they were of limited evidential value. If she was disturbed by noise in future, she should report it to the noise team who would investigate.
Mrs C had said she had had problems contacting the Council’s out-of-hours noise line. This had now “been completely updated to rectify the technical issues and better trace calls and responses so we are now better stagged to deal with complaints”.
The officer did not uphold the complaint. Mrs C came to the Ombudsman.
Was there fault causing injustice?
Call responses Ms C says she made numerous complaints about noise. She has provided phone logs which show that she made numerous calls to the police over 2021 both on the 999 emergency number and on the 101 non-emergency number. These numbers are not within the Council’s control so the Council cannot be at fault for any failure to respond.
Mrs C also says she phoned the Council on numerous occasions but has provided no evidence of this. Therefore, on the evidence, I cannot uphold this part of her complaint as I cannot be sure that she phoned the Council’s service.
Noise complaint responses The Council’s responses to Mrs C’s noise complaints were thorough and proportionate. Officer O in particular was helpful and courteous. I do not find fault.
Decision to warn Mrs C The Council has provided me with evidence of several complaints about noise from Mrs C’s home made by several of her neighbours. The records show that, on one occasion, a Council officer visited the site and witnessed the noise first hand before issuing a warning.
Mrs C said it was not proportionate to give her a warning as only one complaint had been made against her. On the evidence, this was not the case. There were several complaints. In any event, we cannot find the Council at fault for a decision because Mrs C disagrees with it. There was no misuse of the Council’s powers. There was no administrative fault. I do not uphold this part of the complaint.
Final decision
I have decided the Council was not at fault and closed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman