The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to reports of noise nuisance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council responded to his reports of noise and says it did not give him a written outcome. Mr X wants a written report detailing the action taken by the Council and the outcome.
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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Councils must look into reports of noise that could be a statutory nuisance. But councils can only take enforcement action if officers witness excessive noise.
Mr X reported noise from the neighbouring property which can be heard in all rooms but mainly affects the kitchen and bathroom. He said his neighbours are running a business which operates most days. He also reported goods being dropped off and conversations on the doorstep.
An officer wrote to the neighbour and visited Mr X. The officer did not hear any excessive noise. The officer left a recording device. The device did not record any excessive noise. The Council found the noise was not audible above ordinary background noise. The Council told Mr X it had not found a statutory nuisance but said it would make an informal approach to the neighbour. In response, the neighbour agreed to mediation and said they would not start using the equipment until 10.00am.
Mr X says the Council failed to provide any updates or the outcome. He also says the responses have been inaccurate and the Council did not respond to an email from January.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded appropriately by considering evidence from Mr X and the neighbour, the recordings, and what the officer heard. The outcome was that the Council did not obtain evidence of a statutory nuisance such that it can take further action. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the outcome but there is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Council reached its decision. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot decide if there is a statutory nuisance. That is an assessment for the Council.
The Council initially spoke to Mr X by phone and gave the outcome by phone. It may have been better if the Council had responded to Mr X’s email but as the Council has explained the outcome as part of the complaint correspondence there would be little to be gained from starting an investigation. I appreciate Mr X thinks the response included some inaccuracies but this does not alter the fact that officers did not witness excessive noise so there is no further action that can be taken.
Final decision
We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman