Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about noise nuisance from a neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to act on her reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour. She says the matter has caused distress and affected her health. She wants the Council to take action against her neighbour to stop the noise nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I spoke with Ms X about her complaint.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X has complained about noise nuisance from a neighbour for several years.
9. We will not investigate the Council’s actions prior to 2024. This is because if Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s actions before this time, she could have approached us sooner.
10. In 2024, the Council met with Ms X to discuss her concerns. It advised her it would need to gather evidence of the noise nuisance before it could take any action. It assisted her to install a noise monitoring device and invited her to submit recordings.
11. Ms X submitted multiple recordings to the Council. The Council considered the recordings but decided there was insufficient evidence that the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance, so it would not take further action. It closed the case.
12. In response to planning concerns she also raised, it said it was currently investigating whether there had been a material change of use to her neighbour’s property and it would decide whether to take any action dependent on the outcome of its investigation.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
14. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. It is for officers to assess the evidence and use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists. In this case, the Council appropriately investigated Ms X’s complaint and considered the evidence she provided. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it considered the matter and reached its decisions and so we cannot question the decisions reached.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman