The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in investigating a noise complaint and its final decision. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to investigate his complaint about noise from cockerels on a neighbouring property in 2024. He says the Council took a year to decide his complaint and did not uphold his claim that there was a statutory nuisance present.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he complained to the Council about noise from cockerels on neighbouring land which he says cause noise and disturbance to an unreasonable level. The Council did not send Mr X a final decision on its investigation until May 2025 and then the decision was that it would take no further action because there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance.
Mr X complained to us in July 2025 which is outside the 12-month period for accepting complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wished to complain about, not when they complained to the Council or it issued its final response. We would expect someone to complain to us within a year, even if they were dissatisfied with the time the complaints procedure was taking.
The Council decided that the cockerels did not meet the threshold for constituting a statutory nuisance but has offered to make further investigation because Mr X says the numbers of birds has increased since its original investigation. It is not our role to say whether the noise that someone is complaining about is a nuisance in law or whether action must be taken to reduce it.
Final decision
We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in investigating a noise complaint and its final decision. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman