Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to address his concerns about noise and light pollution coming from a community centre near his house. He said this caused him and his family stress and inconvenience. There was no fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s reports.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about noise and light pollution coming from a community centre on his street. He said the Council:
1. gave him noise monitoring equipment but would not accept the recording he submitted or properly investigate his complaint;
2. visited his property and observed light pollution coming from the community centre but did not address it;
3. did not take action when the building relocated the entrance door closer to his home, which increased the noise; and
4. failed to inform him the business had changed from a member’s only club to a community centre.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints 1a - 1b. I have not investigated his complaints 1c and d for the reasons explained at paragraph 31.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)
5. Some of the events Mr X refers to in his complaint, including part 1c and 1d happened several years ago. I have only investigated the Council’s actions since 2018. This is because Mr X could have complained about them earlier to the Council and then to the Ombudsman.
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and discussed his view of the complaint.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
   This included a copy of the Council’s policy on responding to noise complaints and Mr X’s complaint form.
9. I have written to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

10. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires councils to investigate complaints about potential statutory nuisances.
11. For something to count as a statutory nuisance, the council must decide it:
• unreasonably and substantially interferes with the use or the enjoyment of a home or other premises; or
• injures health or be likely to injure health.
12. It is for councils to investigate and decide whether something is a statutory nuisance. They make this decision using their professional judgment, considering any relevant evidence.
13. Councils can decide to take informal action, such as a writing to the person causing the nuisance, if the nuisance is not severe enough to be statutory nuisance.

Council policy

14. This council’s policy is that when someone reports noise or light pollution, an officer contacts the person who made the report to agree on how to deal with the issue.
15. The Council should encourage the person reporting the problem to resolve the issue informally in the first instance. If this is not possible, the Council can agree on an approach to resolve the issue with them. The Council should tell them it will close the case if they do not respond.
16. The Council can choose several ways to collect evidence to decide if a report of noise or light pollution is a statutory nuisance. These include sending the complainant diary sheets to complete, visiting the site, writing to the suspected pollution source or providing noise monitoring equipment and considering recordings from that equipment.
17. Once an approach has been agreed, the Council should carry out the agreed action and decide whether it believes, based on its consideration of the evidence, a statutory nuisance has occurred.

What happened

Background to events before matters I have investigated

18. Mr X had, for several years, reported noise and light pollution problems to the Council concerning a community centre near his property. He was concerned the problems had become worse in recent years because the rules about who could use the building had changed.

Events that I have investigated

19. Mr X reported noise and light problems to the Council in March 2018.
    The Council said it would need more information to investigate the report. Mr X did not contact the Council again about the matter until September 2018.
20. The Council provided Mr X with noise monitoring equipment in September 2018 and November 2018. This included a time when the centre was being used for a music event. After listening to Mr X’s recordings, the Council found they were insufficient evidence of a statutory noise nuisance.
21. An officer visited the community centre in late November 2018 and stayed for fifty minutes at a time when the centre was in use to assess the noise levels. The officer decided the noise they witnessed did not constitute a statutory nuisance.
22. In February 2019, Mr X complained that light coming from the community centre was spilling into his back garden. A Council officer visited his home to inspect the problem. The Council said it did not witness a statutory nuisance. Mr X disagrees with this. He says the Council officer who saw the light overspill in his back garden told him they agreed it was a problem
23. In March 2019, Mr X contacted the Council about the noise coming from the community centre. The Council said it offered Mr X noise monitoring equipment again, but Mr X refused it. Mr X disputes this, saying he asked the Council what would the point be in trying again, given he had already provided it with recordings. He said he asked again for the recording equipment but the Council said it was not available at that time.
24. Mr X complained to the Council in May 2019 about how it had handled his reports of nuisance. The Council explained how it had responded to Mr X’s reports including reviewing evidence from log sheets, monitoring equipment and by making site visits to try to witness noise and light problems.
25. The Council again offered Mr X noise monitoring equipment, explaining that to take action it needed evidence that the noise was at a level, frequency and duration to take action.
26. During the investigation, the Council advised Mr X has not responded to its recent offers of noise monitoring equipment nor exhausted its complaints procedure However it welcomed our involvement in the case.

My findings

27. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a statutory nuisance has occurred; this is the Council’s responsibility. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the Council has followed its process and the law correctly.
28. The guidance requires the Council to investigate noise and light pollution complaints and decide, based on its assessment of evidence, whether a statutory nuisance has occurred. When Mr X brought his complaint to the Council, it responded by installing noise monitoring equipment on two occasions and visiting the site to gather evidence. This evidence gathering happened at times when the building was in use. The Council concluded the evidence was insufficient to prove a statutory nuisance had taken place. The Council was entitled to make this decision; the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision the Council has correctly made.
29. Mr X states the officer who visited his property agreed the light spill in his garden was creating a problem. The Council says it decided the light was not at the level sufficient to be a statutory nuisance. The Council was entitled to come to this decision, having witnessed the problem. The Council has, again, offered to provide Mr X with monitoring equipment.

Back to top

Final decision

30. There was no fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s reports of noise and light pollution. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

31. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint 1c and d. This is because the alteration in how the community centre is used happened several years ago. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate matters that long ago.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman