The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to act on his noise nuisance complaint, because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr B says the Council has failed to deal with noise nuisance from his neighbour, which has been ongoing for over a year and affecting Mr B’s enjoyment of his home. Mr B wants the Council to provide a proper response, share with him the letters it has sent to his neighbour, and provide reassurance he will not have future problems.
Mr B also complains about the Council’s inaction at his previous address.
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, 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) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B’s current neighbour has been completing a renovation project for over a year. Mr B experiences drilling, banging, and knocking noises on the party wall for much of the day over the weekend. Sometimes during the week also.
Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 creates a duty on councils to investigate and, where identified, take action to address ‘statutory nuisances’. Under the Act, a statutory nuisance is one which: unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and / or injures health or is likely to injure health.
And which is happening, has happened and is likely to happen again, or is likely to happen in the future.
Noise can be a statutory nuisance. The Council’s website explains the process it will follow to investigate. It says “We investigate complaints under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to determine whether the noise is causing a statutory nuisance. Standard letters are usually sent to both parties, and the complainant is required to complete diary sheets to record when the noise occurs. Thereafter, visits may be made by officers to determine whether or not a Statutory Nuisance is occurring. We would try to offer advice and assistance to the person who is alleged to be causing the noise of measures that could be taken to minimise the noise.”
The Council has completed the above actions to investigate Mr B’s complaint and has decided the noise is not unreasonable and is not a statutory nuisance. Therefore, the Council will take no action. The Council has explained this in letters to Mr B.
Mr B is understandably disappointed in the Council’s decision, but I can see no reason for the Ombudsman to question or criticise it as the Council has followed the correct process to reach its decision.
The Council would not be able to share with Mr B correspondence it has had with someone else and could not guarantee he will not face future noise problems. The important thing is for the Council to properly consider any future concerns it may receive from Mr B or anyone else, and if necessary to act or explain why it will not do so.
Mr B also raises concerns about the Council’s inaction to noise complaints he made at his previous address. Mr B moved in 2017 and so any complaint about those issues is a late complaint as explained in paragraph five. I can see no good reason to investigate those issues now, especially given Mr B no longer lives at that address.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman