Summary: Mrs D says the Council has failed to properly investigate a noise nuisance. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council has failed to properly investigate her reports of a noise nuisance caused by neighbouring building works. She refers to events dating back to 2017.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I am looking at events from October 2018 onwards which is the 12 month period prior to Mrs D contacting the Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have considered the information provided by Mrs D. I asked the Council questions and examined its records.
7. I shared my draft decision with Mrs D and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

8. Mrs D complained to the Council in 2017 through to July 2018 about noise caused by building works at a neighbouring property. The Council carried out an investigation and site visits but did not witness a statutory noise nuisance.

Events I have investigated

9. On 11 February 2019 Mrs D emailed the Council. She said noise from the neighbouring property was escalating and included building noise outside of permitted hours. On 16 February, an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) visited the site. No noise was witnessed. The Council subsequently confirmed with its Out of Hours Noise Team that it had also not witnessed any noise. At the end of March, the Council closed the case because it had not received any further reports from Mrs D.
10. In July, the Council reopened the case after further contact from Mrs D. The Council notified the alleged perpetrator that a new complaint had been received. At the end of August an EHO visited the site and did not find any noise nuisance. A further visit took place two weeks later, the EHO spoke to the alleged perpetrator but not witness a noise nuisance. Mrs D reported noise on 9 November. The Council carried out four proactive noise monitoring visits that month and did not find a noise nuisance.
11. In January 2020, the Council carried out a further three site visits. Again, no noise nuisance was witnessed. Another four proactive visits were made in February and, as before, no noise was witnessed by the EHO.

What should have happened

12. The Council’s Environmental Health Team investigate reports of alleged statutory noise nuisance. The case is assigned to an EHO to investigate. The Council will notify the alleged perpetrator a complaint has been received and an EHO will carry out a site visit to witness the noise. The EHO will decide if the noise constitutes a statutory noise nuisance which warrants enforcement action.
13. If the Council does not witness a noise nuisance it cannot take enforcement action. If a case is not pursued by the complainant, the Council can close the investigation.

Was there fault by the Council

14. Mrs D says the Council failed to properly investigate the noise problem. The evidence shows me the Council has acted in line with its procedures and is not at fault. It has considered the information provided by Mrs D and responded to her reports. It carried out a large number of site visits including out of hours and proactive checks. On no occasion have Officers witnessed a noise nuisance. As such there is no enforcement action the Council can take. I appreciate Mrs D disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. However, the Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decisions in the absence of fault. That applies to this case.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

16. I am not looking at events prior to October 2018 because Mrs D could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman