Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of noise nuisance and alleged licence breach at a pub near the complainant’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives opposite a pub in a built up area. She says in the summer months, customers stand outside the pub and make excessive noise late into the night which disturbs her children. She says the pub is in breach of its licensing conditions and the Council has failed to take suitable action. Ms X wants the Council to proactively monitor the noise and enforce the conditions of the pub’s pavement licence. She wants it to install noise monitoring equipment over the summer period and to pay for an independent acoustics report she commissioned from a private company.

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 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)
3. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The pub opposite Ms X’s home holds a pavement licence allowing patrons to eat and drink outside providing they use the designated tables and chairs. Ms X says that over the summer of 2024, several patrons stood outside the pub while consuming alcohol and made excessive noise. Ms X says this happens each summer, and she has previously complained to the Ombudsman about the same issue. I will only consider matters within the last 12 months because we have already considered and decided Ms X’s previous complaints.
8. In response to Ms X’s complaints, the Council’s Law Enforcement Team (LET) and the Council’s Environmental Public Protection Team (EPPT) carried out respective site visits. The EPPT confirmed patrons were standing outside the pub, but it did not consider the noise was at an unreasonable level. The Council recognises the matter of noise nuisance can be subjective, and understands people have different thresholds as to what is considered acceptable in terms of noise levels. The Council’s LET similarly found no evidence of unreasonable behaviour and found no evidence of a licensing breach; it confirmed there is no restriction to people standing outside the pub if they are not drinking since the area outside of the pub is part of the public highway.
9. I understand Ms X strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we could not overturn the Council’s decision. We can only criticise the Council if we consider there is fault in its decision making process. There is not enough evidence that this is the case here. The Council has visited the site and used its professional judgement to decide there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance or breach of licence. The Council has considered Ms X’s complaint in line with its policy. We cannot therefore criticise it.
10. In response to Ms X’s allegations of a pavement licence breach, the Council’s licensing manager held a meeting with the licence holder of the pub and mediated with the pub landlord and the area manager. The Council reminded them of the need to manage patrons outside the pub and of the conditions of the pavement licence. The pub’s management team agreed to appoint a member of staff to proactively monitor the outside pavement area once per hour and keep a written record of each patrol including any remedial action taken, to be kept for inspection by the Council. This is an appropriate response from the Council. It has investigated Ms X’s complaints, carried out site visits, and mediated with relevant parties. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s response to Ms X’s complaints.
11. The Council has advised Ms X to make further contact if she experiences noise disturbance in the future and says it will carry out a new noise nuisance assessment. It also says its EPPT and licensing team will continue to both proactively and reactively monitor the licensed premises and will take enforcement action if it witnesses a breach in license conditions. Additionally, the Council has also said it is willing to install noise monitoring equipment if Ms X wants to proceed with this option. It has also offered Ms X an out of hours contact for its noise team and confirmed it will remain in close contact with the pub to monitor the situation. The Council’s response is appropriate and is in line with what we would expect it to do. Our further involvement is therefore unlikely to achieve a different outcome for Ms X and would not be proportionate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome, and because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman