The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his noise complaints since 2018. Part of the complaint is late. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating the Council’s more recent actions.
The complaint
Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his noise complaints since 2018. He says the noise from a nearby bar significantly impacts his sleep and his mental health. He wants the Council to take further action to investigate and address the noise.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises.
There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather and assess relevant evidence. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
The law says a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person.
Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his noise complaints since 2018. He approached us about this matter in September 2025.
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his noise complaints before September 2024. This part of the complaint is late. If Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s actions during that time, I can see no good reason why he could not have approached us sooner.
In its complaint response, the Council said it had provided Mr B with its out-of-hours number to request a visit when the noise was most disruptive. It said it had visited his property several times and its officers had carried out 15 minute in-person assessments. It said it considered this approach was appropriate because Mr B said he could not download a noise recording application, and because he complained about bass level noise which is difficult to capture on a recording.
The Council said its assessments considered the noise’s volume, frequency, time, proximity and type, and whether the average person would consider it unreasonable. It said its officers had consistently found the noise Mr B reported did not amount to a statutory nuisance, so it would not take formal enforcement action.
We will not investigate Mr B’s remaining complaint. While I understand he is unhappy with the Council’s response, it appears it has taken appropriate steps to assess the noise against relevant criteria. It has used its professional judgement but decided the noise does not amount to statutory nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it has reached this decision to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating the Council’s more recent actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman