Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in response to a complaint about nuisance from a neighbour’s car. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to consider her neighbour’s car exhaust to be a statutory nuisance and to serve an abatement notice. She says that the car disturbs her sleep when it is started early in a morning and that the noise must constitute a nuisance for the Council to act on.

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. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained about the noise from her neighbour’s son’s car which has a modified exhaust fitted. The Council undertook noise measurements but told her that its officers did not consider the frequency and duration of the noise met the level for it to be a statutory nuisance.
7. The police issued the driver with a warning under s.59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 which enables them to seize the car if it continues to cause anti-social behaviour. The Council told Mrs X that it considered the police had resolved the matter, but she wants them to serve the owner with an abatement notice.
8. Following her complaint, the Council accepted that it should not have assumed the Police warning had ended the matter. However, it remains of the view that the car does not meet the test for statutory nuisance and an abatement notice would not be appropriate or defensible in this case. The Police can take further action if the car is stopped for the same reason within 12 months.
9. We may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
10. If the Council had considered the issue to be a statutory nuisance it would be required to serve an abatement notice. There is no duty to serve a notice if the Council decides there is no statutory nuisance, as in this case. These notices carry a right of appeal to the Magistrates court and the recipient can appeal if they believe the notice was unreasonable or incorrectly served.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in response to a complaint about nuisance from a neighbour’s car. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman