Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaint about noise nuisance. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council has failed to act following her reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour. She says the matter has caused her distress. She wants the Council to act to stop the noise nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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

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. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said as part of its investigation it had discussed the matter with her, reviewed her diary sheets, completed a site visit and installed noise monitoring equipment in her property. It said after reviewing all the evidence, it had decided there was not enough evidence to say the noise disturbance amounted to a statutory nuisance.
8. The Council accepted there had been some poor communication and a delay updating her about her case. It apologised to her for this and said it had acted to improve its service going forward.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has appropriately considered Ms X’s concerns but decided there is not enough evidence of a statutory nuisance to warrant further action. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached this decision so we cannot question the outcome.
10. The Council has acknowledged there was some poor communication during its consideration of her case and apologised to her for this. This is a suitable response and it is unlikely an investigation by us would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely we would reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman