Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to stop noise nuisance caused by a nearby pub. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court if he disagreed with the last licensing committee decision and complains too late about the history. He can report further problems to the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to stop noise nuisance caused by a nearby pub. He says the Council’s licensing committee review did not take effective action to stop the loud music and thumping noise which at times is unbearable and interrupts the family’s sleep. Mr X says the Council should take more effective action and if necessary revoke the pub’s licence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. I have considered the Council’s information including its replies to Mr X’s complaints, the record of the Licensing Sub Committee, and the hearing decision letter to Mr X.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2017 the Council served an abatement notice against the pub having assessed the noise was a noise nuisance. The minutes of the licensing hearing say a noise nuisance was heard in May 2019 but an abatement notice was not served. The hearing was informed of the history of monitoring and interventions with the pub. It was noted that the Council has not done noise monitoring from within the properties of the complainants or used noise monitoring equipment. Mr X as an objector addressed the hearing.
7. The licensing sub committee decided to modify the licence conditions. This includes requiring the pub to install a noise limiting device by November, restrictions on the use of outside areas, staff monitoring of areas and training.
8. The Council’s licensing decision letter to participants says they have a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court, within 21 days, if they disagree with the decision. The minutes of the hearing also include that information.
9. Mr X says the pub always finds a way round the requirements. He says the environmental protection manager was not properly prepared and did not have information about all the complaints at the hearing. He says the changes to the licence were largely already in place.
10. In the 5 weeks or so after the hearing, Mr X reported to the Council 5 occasions when the family heard noise. The Council visited on one occasion but did not consider the noise a nuisance. Mr X has acknowledged some improvement in the situation.

Analysis

11. I do not propose investigating this complaint for the following reasons:
12. The decision of the Council’s licensing sub committee is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X had a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court (see paragraph 3 and 8 above). I consider it reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal given his reports of further problems shortly after the hearing. The court has the power to change the licence.
13. The history of noise nuisance before September 2018 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X complains late on the 12 month rule (see paragraph 4). Mr X complained to the Ombudsman on 13 September 2019. I do not propose exercising discretion to investigate because Mr X could have complained sooner.
14. The licensing committee had detailed information about the problems at the site when making its decision. The Council says it continues to monitor the pub. Should noise problems continue Mr X can ask the Council to reassess the noise at his property. In that situation, the Ombudsman would expect the Council to respond promptly and to consider using noise monitoring equipment at his property.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to stop noise nuisance caused by a nearby pub. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court if he disagreed with the last licensing committee decision and complains too late about the history. He can report further problems to the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman