Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take action against his neighbour’s noise nuisance following the breach of an injunction.

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.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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 I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has been experiencing a noise nuisance from his neighbour for several years. The Council obtained an injunction against the noise nuisance. Mr X reports the nuisance has continued following the injunction. He says the noise is having a significant effect on his wellbeing.
6. Mr X complains the Council have failed to take action against his neighbour following the reported breach of an injunction. He says the injunction does not allow noise from his neighbour to disturb Mr X at his property so the Council should have taken action following the breaches.
7. The Council have said they completed several site visits and installed noise monitoring equipment. The Council say it did not find sufficient evidence to support a breach of the injunction.
8. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes here to warrant an investigation. The Council investigated Mr X’s reports and did not find sufficient evidence to support a breach of the injunction.
10. Under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a member of the public can take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it. It is open to Mr X to pursue this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman