Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take action in respect of a noise nuisance from an adjacent business. The Council investigated and served an abatement notice. It carried out further monitoring after the end of the compliance period and took the view the statutory nuisance had been abated. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take action in respect of a noise nuisance caused by the operation of refrigeration units and vehicles at an adjacent business.
2. Mr X says the noise prevented him from sleeping and affected his mental health. He says he lost his job as a result of his health problems.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant; and
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s property is adjacent to business premises. In May 2018 he complained to the Council about noise from refrigeration units and vehicles. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaints. This included writing to the business and Mr X. The Council said it would close the investigation if Mr X did not report further noise within four weeks.
7. The Council says it was about to close the case because Mr X had not made further reports within the four week period. Mr X then telephoned the Council on 28 June saying there was no improvement. Mr X telephone again on 31 July. As a result, a council officer visited the business the same day. The business told the Council it had carried out works on the air management system to reduce the noise levels.
8. The Council spoke to Mr X on 13 August and Mr X said the noise problem was now being caused by one refrigeration unit running throughout the night.
9. On 23 August 2018, the Council witnessed a statutory nuisance during an evening visit to the premises. The Council served an abatement notice on the business on 24 August 2018.
10. The abatement notice required the business to take action to stop the noise from the operation of the air management plant at the premises within six weeks. This meant the business had until 5 October to comply with the abatement notice.
11. On 19 October Mr X contacted the Council saying he continued to be affected by the noise. The Council told Mr X it would carry out further assessments of the noise. It explained it would need to ensure good weather conditions in order to assess the noise levels and make recordings. The Council said that it would need to ensure it had good evidence to take further action in the form of prosecution in court.
12. The Council wrote to the business on 1 November explaining it was still receiving complaints about the noise. The business told the Council it had carried out works on the extraction unit at the beginning of October.
13. The Council visited the business on 6 November and carried out noise assessments. The Council’s view was that the noise, while audible, was insignificant. It felt the tonal element of the noise witnessed in August was no longer there. The Council took the view there was no longer a statutory nuisance and that the company had complied with the abatement notice. The Council wrote to Mr X the next day informing him of its findings and that it had closed its investigation. Mr X submitted a stage one formal complaint.
14. Mr X continued to report noise nuisance so the Council agreed to carry out further monitoring. The Council visited Mr X’s property on 20 November to witness the noise. Due to the poor weather conditions, the Council was unable to carry out recordings. Two officers visited and witnessed the same level of noise as when they last visited on 6 November. They then went into Mr X’s property. Officers noted the sound was inaudible from inside even with the bedroom window ajar. The Council’s view remained that the statutory nuisance previously witnessed had been abated.
15. Mr X sent the Council video recordings he had made of the noise from the adjacent business. The Council listened to them but was not persuaded the noise was a statutory nuisance.
16. The Council revisited the business premises on 28 November. The officer noted gentle air movement from the extraction units which was audible up to four metres away. The officer also noted the noise was not audible at the curtilage of Mr X’s property. The Council says the noise witnessed during this visit was the same as on the previous visits and those on the video recordings provided by Mr X. The Council’s view remained that there was no longer a statutory nuisance.

Analysis

17. The information provided shows the Council responded to Mr X’s complaints of noise nuisance and took appropriate action to investigate. As a result of the investigations the Council issued a noise abatement notice in August 2018 after it witnessed a statutory nuisance.
18. After the end of the compliance period, Mr X reported to the Council that he was still experiencing noise nuisance. The Council followed this up by writing to the business and then by visiting to witness the noise. To abate the noise the business installed a silencer into the air outflow ducting. The Council says before and after measurements, using British Standards methodology, showed a reduction in noise from 20 decibels to four decibels.
19. The Council then visited the business and Mr X’s property to monitor the noise. The Council reports that while it noted some noise from the refrigeration unit, this could not be considered a statutory nuisance.
20. The Council correctly issued an abatement notice after witnessing a statutory nuisance. It is satisfied the works carried out by the business to comply with the notice have reduced the noise. It has formed this view after visiting both the business and Mr X’s property to witness the noise.
21. I appreciate Mr X does not agree with the position taken by the Council. He says the noise continues to disturb him. He says he cannot sleep and has mental health problems. While I am sorry to hear Mr X is experiencing problems, I am not persuaded this is due to any fault by the Council.
22. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative process and not the merits of decisions properly taken even though people may disagree with them. The Council gathered evidence during monitoring visits and also considered the video recordings made by Mr X. The qualified officer considered all the evidence available and then used his professional judgement to decide the statutory nuisance had been abated and so no further action would be taken.
23. I find no evidence of fault in the process leading to the Council’s decision that the statutory nuisance no longer existed and so I cannot criticise the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman