{{{The Local Government Ombudsman's decision on Council and HMO landlord}}}

They are all really one (government) organisation with different names. So, the LGO is not an independent organisation as claimed... They are the council's Lawyers. I'm very disappointed with all 3 outcomes after 16 months of agony, stress, anxiety, high blood pressure, mild stroke and hospitalised, all because the council forced this situation upon me. Is as if they have put a loaded gun to my head! The whole system is stacked against the ordinary people and there is no justice for us! They can do us whatever they choose and get away with it, because they know they're we're helpless against them!

I'm told the only option left for me now, is to challenge their decision through the judicial review in the High Court.

Read the LGO final decision and my comment/defence (in yellow) below...  But, the final decision wasn't any different from their draft decision...in spite of all my evidence I submitted in support of my complaint; they were ignored because investigator already made her mind up with her draft decision to defend and support the council.

The complaint

1. {I am referred to as} Mr X says the Council is at fault in its handling of his reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. In particular he says the Council’s investigation of his reports was flawed and therefore its decision not to take action against the owner of the property was wrong. Mr X says the Council’s failure to take action has left him living in a home which is too noisy and this is affecting his health. He says to resolve the matter the Council should purchase his property at the full market value.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. She 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, she may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1)) {My comment & defence: Oh yes, all of the above the council is guilty of!  And, what about me been hospitalised with anxiety, stress, high blood pressure and a mild stroke because of the effect the noise have on me and for what the council has put me through?  Isn’t that an adverse impact?}
3. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. She must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3)) {My comment & defence: So what is the purpose of having an Ombudsman? It’s just a waste of time and lots frustration! It’s just a façade!}

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of my investigation I considered Mr X’s complaint and the information he provided. I asked the Council to provide me with information from its investigation of Mr X’s reports and I considered this. I set out my initial thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and I invited Mr X and the Council to comment.

What I found

5. This Act provides that when considering a complaint about noise local authorities must consider if the noise is a statutory nuisance. For a noise to be a statutory nuisance it must be either:

• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of home or other premises or;
• Injure health or be likely to injure health. {My comment & defence: Exactly what it has done and is still doing to me}

How a statutory nuisance is determined

6. A statutory nuisance must be witnessed by an Environmental Health Officer who will come to a judgement on whether the noise constitutes a statutory nuisance. When making this decision the officer should have regard to the level of noise, its length, timing and location.  {My comment & defence: Yes, if the officer is legitimate and not biased and corrupt!}

The Council Environmental Noise Policy and Procedure

7. This document sets out what action the Council will take when a report of noise nuisance is received, the methods it will use to investigate and how it will communicate with the parties involved.

Key events

8. Mr X owns his home. In August 2015, the owner of the property, Mr Y, next door converted it into a ‘house in multiple occupation’ (HMO). Mr Y did not require a HMO license as there are less than six people living in the property. As part of the conversion works, Mr Y installed fire doors. {My comment & defence: There are 4 tenants living in the property where there should be only 3...  And because of 1 extra tenant, the dining room was converted into a bedroom so contributing to the noise where it wouldn’t have been so severe because 1 fire doors and the extra main entrance door are only 1 meter away from a “very thin” party wall}
9. In late November 2015 Mr X complained to the Council about noise from banging fire doors at the HMO. The Council sent Mr X some diary sheets for him to complete so it could get a better understanding of the problem.
10. The Council told Mr X in December that it would contact Mr Y about the noise that he had reported and visit the premises. The Council asked Mr Y to adjust the self-closers on the fire doors so that they closed more quietly.
11. The Council visited the property and found the fire doors had been adjusted. The Council asked Mr Y to ask his tenants to avoid banging the fire doors. {My comment & defence:  That’s a lie!  I have letter from council to prove so.  They asked the tenants only to make sure that (hydraulic spring) fire doors are closed quietly; because, when windows are open, the doors seems to close harder}
12. The Council contacted Mr X to see if the noise was any better and he said there had been a recent improvement.  {My comment & defence: Yes, for about 2 days (on the weekend) when some of the tenants were not at home. (You see how they worded it as though something was done)}
13. However Mr X contacted the Council in late December to advise the problem had recurred. The Council sent him further diary sheets to complete.
14. Mr X’s completed diary sheets showed the worst noise was in the mornings and evenings. Mr X asked the Council to provide recording equipment as he did not consider a visit from an officer would be useful.
15. In late January the Council installed recording equipment at Mr X’s home for a week. It listened to the recordings but found no evidence of excessive noise and therefore it could not conclude that there was a statutory nuisance. {My comment & defence: They claimed recording was not loud enough. I asked for copy of recording (as I didn’t trust officer). But just the audio recording was given to me on 2 CDs; and I can clearly hear banging noise, but noise is on CDs was no way loud as I hear them. And, the audio didn’t pick up the vibrations from the heavy closing of doors either.  (But, I’m still waiting for decibel recording that they claimed the recorder can record also)}
16. Mr X disputed the Council’s findings and raised questions about whether the tenants at the property were aware that recording equipment had been installed at his home. {My comment & defence: I was told by the officer they do inform the perpetrators that they are being monitored}
17. For this reason the Council installed recording equipment at Mr X’s home in late February for a further week. Officers from the Council also visited Mr X’s home while the recording equipment was in place. Mr X advised them the main perpetrator of the noise did not appear to be at home.  {My comment & defence: {The main perpetrator; meaning the HMO landlord’s son in converted dining room as a bedroom, with 1 fire door and 1 extra main entry door closest to the party wall.  Officers visited my property after recording equipment had been taken away.  And, because I was told that there was no 2^nd recording, I requested for officer to visit my property to listen to noise for themselves.  But the usual time when the most and heaviest noise occurred the landlord’s son did not come home at the time when he normally does.  And this happened on 2 separate occasions when the officer visited me, because I told officer the time landlord’s son normally comes home from work.  (Coincident?  I don t think so!)}
18. The Council considered the noise recordings. While the sound of the fire doors closing could be heard the Council did not consider the noise constituted a statutory nuisance. {My comment & defence:  So, the noise is not statutory nor loud!  So what is it when they are so loud I can hear them in all the rooms of my house with doors closed and with earplugs in, and where they’re so heavy  vibrates the party wall and goes on 7 days a week}
19. The Council visited Mr X’s home again during the evening. Mr X told the officers who attended that the main perpetrator was not there again. The officers witnessed a few occasions of doors closing but the resulting noise did not constitute a statutory nuisance.
20. Mr X continued to complain about the problem. In April officers visited Mr X’s home and the neighbouring property. During the visit one officer stayed at the neighbouring property and shut doors so the other officer could assess the noise from different rooms in Mr X’s home. Although some noise could be heard in Mr X’s home the Council explained to him that it did not amount to a statutory nuisance. Mr X did not accept the Council’s view. {My comment & defence: All noise could be heard (very loudly) by officers, my witness and myself, but officer covered up the severity of all noise.  However, I asked the officer; can you live here or in your own property with that noise coming from your next-door neighbour’s property?  Officer refused to answer. Then I was asked; which of the doors that are causing the most disturbance?  I responded all of them as you heard.  But I was told that they can only have some of them adjusted.  So I kicked up a fuss…then officer told me she’ll ask landlord to adjust all doors.”  But a letter from officer’s boss showed she went back on her words and asked for only some of the doors to be adjusted; because she doesn’t see any reason for the landlord to spend any money or the council to do anything, because to their (biased - covered up - no evidence) investigation, noise is not statutory or loud}
21. Unhappy with the Council’s actions, Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of his reports. In particular he said the Council’s investigation of his concerns was flawed. The Council investigated his concerns at all stages of its complaints procedure but did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
22. Mr X remains unhappy and says the Council’s decision not to take further action was wrong.

Analysis

23. Mr X says the Council did not have regard to the diary sheets he completed. I do not agree. The information contained in the diary sheets was influential in the Council’s decision to place noise recording equipment at his home. Information from the diary sheets also helped to identify the times the nuisance was most likely to occur and the best times for officers to visit Mr X’s home to witness the nuisance.
24. Concerns have also been raised by Mr X about the noise recording equipment installed at his home. Mr X says the equipment is not suitable for recording the type of noise he has reported. I do not agree. The recording equipment is able to record noise of various frequencies and pitches. It is also able to record noise levels.  { My comment: I was told this by qualified professional engineering company that deals in measuring sounds/noises}
25. Mr X also says the noise recording equipment was installed when the main perpetrator was not present. The Council had regard to these concerns and installed the equipment again. I am therefore satisfied the Council took appropriate action in response to his concerns.  {My comment & defence:  There wasn’t any recording equipment installed when perpetrator wasn’t at home.  In fact it was after when I’d noticed on both occasions when officer had visited me to listened to noise the main perpetrator (the landlord’s son) stayed away and didn’t come home until a half hour after officer had gone, as officer were here only for 1 hr.   But when I’d noticed on both occasions when officer were here the main perpetrator didn’t come home, it arose my suspicion…and it was then I requested for the recorder to be installed; because it seemed to much of a coincident}
26. Additionally Mr X says the Council said that some of the recordings taken at his home were not admissible. The Council says this was not the case. The incidents recorded by Mr X were listened to by the Council but officers concluded the noise recorded did not amount to a statutory nuisance. I note the Council installed recording equipment at Mr X’s home on two occasions. I consider it had sufficient recordings to come to a balanced view regardless of whether there was a problem with an individual recording, as alleged by Mr X.  {My comment & defence: The 1st recording, the council claimed was quiet, therefore nothing to go on.  The 2nd recording which should have been louder, because recording equipment was placed closer to the party wall, but the council claimed there were no recording because recorder must have broken down (which they admitted and confirmed in a letter to me).  I’d informed the LGO that I have evidence in a letter from the council regarding the admission, but the LGO wasn’t interested, so they twisted it as though it was something I just alleged).  (But, you see how the LGO can twist things in support of the council)}
27. Council officers also visited Mr X’s home to witness the noise but decided there was no statutory nuisance. The Council visited Mr X’s home during the early evening, the time which his diary sheets indicated was the peak time for noise to occur. The officers went to the neighbouring property to close doors while another officer observed the resulting noise from Mr X’s home. I do not find any evidence of fault in how the Council conducted these visits. {My comment & defence: The council officer/s done the visiting alright; but it’s the biased way in which they carried out and covered up the severity of the noise in the investigation - to favour the HMO landlord and themselves; because, the council benefits from HMO.  Plus, they didn’t have any proof on recorder on recording of noise, so they came to the assumption that it was their expertise with listening to noises (the noise that I’m experiencing which they have never witnessed before according to one of the officers - the sound engineer}
28. I understand Council officers also visited the HMO and asked Mr Y to adjust the fire doors so that they closed more slowly to reduce the likelihood of them banging shut. Mr X says the officers did not visit his home again to see if it had reduced the noise heard in his home. The Council accepts its officers did not do so however I do not consider this amounts to fault. This is because officers had already determined the noise heard from Mr X’s home did not constitute a statutory nuisance. Therefore whether the adjustments made by the HMO owner resulted in any noise reduction or not there would still not have been grounds for the Council to take further action. {My comment & defence: So not only did the EH officer didn’t revisit my property to witness noise had been stopped or reduced, the LGO also defending the council again saying; “Therefore whether the adjustments made by the HMO owner resulted in any noise reduction or not there would still not have been grounds for the  Council to take further action.” Why? Because the officer didn’t revisit the HMO property either, because I was at home all day and the party wall is so thing you can hear the tenants talking and doors boom/banging.  So, definitely a cover up there too!  So you see the council nor the LGO doesn’t care whether I can sell my house or not, or in the end, the noise ruin my health or even kills me; just so long as they can benefit from the HMO landlord}
29. Furthermore it should be noted the Council did not have to ask Mr Y to make adjustments as it had not identified a statutory nuisance. The Council did this to help resolve matters for Mr X in the absence of it being able to take any formal action. {My comment & defence: I believe the council didn’t ask the landlord to adjust the doors, because the noise is still going on after 16 months}
30. Mr X says the Council’s investigation was biased and a cover-up. For the reasons set out above I do not agree and I have seen no evidence which supports Mr X’s contention. {My comment & defence: it’s definitely a cover up -100%!  I submitted evidence of the non-suitability of property for HMO, but the council did not have any evidence of their own that of recording not statutory nor not loud}
31. I am also aware that Mr X has made accusations that officers lied to him when at his home and made comments that they do not want to help or care about this problems. The Council says its officers did not act in this way. I was not privy to these incidents and so I cannot come to a view on what did or did not occur. {My comment & defence: So, although the LGO wasn’t privy to incident, but yet, they defended the council!  So it didn’t matter whatever I stated in my complaint the LGO were the council’s Lawyer and not an independent body}
32. Finally Mr X says the Council’s investigation should not have focussed so heavily on whether or not a statutory nuisance occurred. I do not agree. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 local authorities can only take formal action against a statutory nuisance. {My comment & defence: Yes, in that case, the Act 1990 will apply.  However, how would the noise be regarded as a statutory nuisance when officer covered up and lie about the severity and loudness of the noise just by using her “so-called expertise” (which is questionable) without any recording?  In addition, the council claim their officer is so experience and all that…  Then why didn’t the officer know how I could hear the noise upstairs from downstairs? Expertise my foot!} While I appreciate that Mr X considers the noise to be a nuisance it is for the council officers to use their professional judgement to determine if it constitutes a statutory nuisance. I have found no evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s reports and therefore there are no grounds on which I can questions the merits of its decision on this matter. {My comment & defence: This council officer had no professionalism…she was biased and I believe it was also personal too; because I went on the local Radio Station about the problem regarding the council weren’t taking my complaint seriously. Also, the fact that, in the earlier stage of the investigation, I complained to her boss about officer don’t seemed to be taking my complaint seriously, and not dealing with the investigation in a hurry and she was always on leave; and I did not like the way she was handling the investigation in a biased way.  Therefore, I asked for another officer to be appointed to do the investigation.  But, all (5) fire doors installed in property makes horrendous boom/banging noises because they’re supported by hydraulic springs, so tenants can’t control the closures of them.  The problem here is that the council gave landlord permission to “convert a not suitable property” into HMO and to fit fire doors in it. So, it’s the council really at fault for what I’ve been going through for 16 months now}
33.  

Final decision

33. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance. I have therefore ended my investigation of this complaint.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

{My comment & defence: My final comment: Up until the time when the officer didn’t revisit my property…I thought I was fighting the HMO landlord, but in fact, it turned out be it was the council I was fighting, because all the time they had the HMO landlord’s back.  In addition, the LGO is not an independent organisation as claimed.  They are the council/s Lawyer and defender!  So all this stuff about fairness and not taking sides…well you have read it}