Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s response to her reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s lack of action and its delay in responding to communication concerning her reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. She says this is having a determinantal impact on her health and that the neighbour should be stopped from maintaining his van and equipment in front of the house and on the street.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

6. Over a number of years Ms X has complained to the Council about a neighbour who lives close to her and who runs his gardening business from his home. Ms X has reported this neighbour to the Council because of the noise generated when he services equipment and vehicles in connection with his business and because of waste stored periodically in a trailer on his driveway.
7. Past investigations by the Council found no nuisance which amounted to a statutory nuisance because the noise had not been persistent enough. It also found no planning breach had occurred as the cleaning and servicing of equipment and vehicles did not amount to a change of use of the property from that of a residential dwelling.
8. In 2019, Ms X contacted the Council again to report noise nuisance and that there was an accumulation of waste in a trailer on the neighbour’s property. The Council investigated the noise but came to the same conclusion it had reached previously. It sent a letter to the neighbour about the waste which led to its removal.
9. In responding to Ms X’s complaint about these matters the Council sympathised with the lack of good neighbour values shown by the neighbour but it explained that while her concern about the use of his property had been investigated, it had found the primary use remained residential and no change of use had occurred. It also said the parking of business vehicles on the highway within a residential area and the occasional servicing of business equipment did not change the primary use of the dwelling.
10. It further explained that any concerns Ms X had about parking offences would need to be raised directly with the police or the County Council and that a breach of covenant was a private legal matter. While it apologised for delays in communication, the Council concluded there had been no unauthorised change of use and no statutory noise nuisance against which it would take action.
11. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

12. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 applies to events prior to 2019 and as there are no grounds which warrant exercising discretion, we will not go back to investigate them now.
13. I understand Ms X’s frustration with the actions of her neighbour but the Council has investigated her concerns and found no grounds on which to base any enforcement action. This is disappointing for Ms X but it is not evidence of fault by the Council and it is not our role to review the merits of the decisions it has made.
14. Ms X says the Council’s response to her has suffered because of the involvement of different department. However, different areas of law apply to these matters and the Council has considered these different areas.
15. Ms X says she did not receive a response to her query about what is “unusual behaviour” but it is clear the Council’s view of the neighbour’s behaviour is that it is not at a level or of a type which warrants further action.
16. Ms X has explained the health problems she has and her belief that the situation with her neighbour and the Council’s response has exasperated these problems. While this is very unfortunate, such a claim against the Council would need to be decided by the courts and not the Ombudsman.
17. Ms X is disappointed that her complaint will not be investigated but we do not investigate every complaint we receive and in this case an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to result in a different outcome for Ms X. She has acknowledged that the repairing of vehicles on the street is not a matter for the Council but for the police and the County Council but says that it is a nuisance caused by his business which comes under the Council’s Planning and Enforcement control. However, the Council has looked at the issue from this perspective and decided what is being done does not amount to a change of use. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and its merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman