The complaint
The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to address a proven statutory noise nuisance. He says the Officer misdirected herself on the burden of proof by applying the criminal standard.
Mr X also complains the Council failed to properly consider his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Section 79 of the Act 1990 refers to Statutory Nuisances. A statutory nuisance could include noise emitted from premises which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance.
Under the Act, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances. A nuisance is defined as something which unreasonably interferes with someone else's enjoyment of their home or garden. Noise and fumes can be statutory nuisances. To be a statutory nuisance, they must: unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premise; and / or injure health or be likely to injure health.
Under the Act, a council must take 'all reasonable steps' to investigate complaints about potential statutory nuisances.
There is no fixed point at which a nuisance becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. The Council should consider the type, duration, intensity, and location of a nuisance when deciding if it is a statutory nuisance.
What happened Mr X complained about noise from his neighbour’s barking dog. The Council provided diary sheets for Mr X to complete. It also installed noise monitoring equipment in his home on two occasions for two weeks at a time.
An Officer considered the diary sheets and the recordings from the noise monitoring equipment. They decided, based on the information, there was not enough evidence for the noise to meet the level of a statutory nuisance. A second Officer reviewed the information and came to the same conclusion.
Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Council must take all reasonable steps to investigate complaints about statutory nuisances.
The Council has shown the steps it took to investigate Mr X’s noise complaints including installing noise monitoring equipment. After consideration of the available evidence, the Council decided the reported noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
We are satisfied the evidence shows the Council has taken all reasonable steps to investigate Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance. It has installed noise monitoring equipment on two occasions, considered diary sheets, visited his home and witnessed the noise from the barking dog. Therefore, the Council has properly considered his reports and gathered all the relevant evidence it needed to make a decision.
Mr X believes the information he has provided proves his neighbours are creating a Statutory Nuisance. However, as the Council has made its decision properly, it is entitled to make a professional judgment that the noise does not amount to a statutory nuisance. We cannot criticise the Council’s decision just because Mr X disagrees with it.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. From the information we have seen the Council has taken all reasonable steps to investigate his noise complaints. Further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman