Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over noise nuisance from his neighbour starting a motor vehicle in the early morning. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s failure to take action over noise from a neighbour’s van which is started at 6:30-7:30am outside his home. He wants the Council to serve a notice to prevent nuisance from his neighbours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council about his neighbour starting and running a motor vehicle outside his home when he is in bed in the early morning. He asked the Council to take action to prevent this disturbance. The Council told Mr X that this is not a statutory nuisance and that many people travel from their homes every morning at all hours.
5. Mr X has made several complaints about matters which are not statutory nuisances in the past and as a result the Council has restricted his access to make complaints about these issues. Mr X has also made three previous complaints to the Ombudsman about similar issues and the Council’s restriction on his contact.
6. The Council has a duty to investigate complaints about nose nuisance where they may be a statutory nuisance. It has advised Mr X that the matters he has raised could not be such a nuisance and it would not be able to take abatement action.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. There is no evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman