Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his complaints of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. We 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 Mr X, says the Council has failed to help him with the noise nuisance he is experiencing from renovation works his next-door neighbours are carrying out. As a result, he had had to endure loud and disturbing noise over a long period of time and this has affected his mental and physical health.

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
• 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

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

Back to top

What I found

5. Neighbours next door to Mr X began renovation works to their property. Mr X complained to the Council about this and the Council sent a letter to the neighbours, details of how Mr X could submit a noise log and offered Mr X its mediation service.
6. It did not hear again from Mr X until a few months later but as Mr X said the noise had abated, he would “park” the matter. In response to his contact again the following month, the Council repeated that it needed to receive noise log details from him.
7. Three months later, Mr X sent in historic noise log details and the Council advised its process would need to start again with a letter to the neighbours and up to date noise logs from Mr X.
8. The Council considered the noise log information Mr X sent in the following month. However, having investigated the matter, it wrote to Mr X to explain why the noise could not be regarded as a statutory nuisance.
9. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council which it addressed under the three stages of its complaints procedure. It found no fault with the way it had dealt with the case. It advised Mr X he could take his own action through the Magistrates Court and that the offer to access an independent mediation service still stood.
10. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response and the ongoing noise, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

11. The Council investigated the noise nuisance complaints Mr X made but decided the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance because of the lack of intensity, frequency, timing, nature and duration of the noise. It spoke to the neighbours and established that, as is the nature with renovation works, they are time-limited. While Mr X has clearly been disturbed by the works, it is not open to us to review the merits of the Council’s decisions no matter how strongly Mr X may disagree with them.
12. The Council has advised Mr X of the alternative options available to him. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
13. In responding to my draft decision Mr X complains about harassment from his neighbours and says that police officers who attended his property heard noise coming from next door. Allegations of harassment are for the police to investigate and Mr X should contact them if any further incidents take place. With regard to the noise heard by officers, the fact that noise is heard from a property does not mean there is a statutory nuisance. I sympathise with Mr X that his neighbours’ renovations have been prolonged and at times noisy but the Council investigated and found no grounds on which to base formal enforcement action. This is disappointing for Mr X but I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council in its handling of the case.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We 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