Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging that noise from a van early in the morning represents a statutory nuisance. This is because I have seen no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions on this case. Additionally with respect to a complaint about noise from a trail bike, there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, says, in summary, he is suffering noise nuisance every morning from a van loading up outside his bedroom window. He says he is being waken up early every morning. He has also complained about the Council’s delayed response to a complaint about noise from a trail bike.

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 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)

We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information provided by the complainant. I have read the responses from the Council to Mr X. I shared my draft decision with him and read his emailed responses carefully.

Back to top

What I found

4. Councils can consider complaints about ‘statutory nuisance’ as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. For the problem complained about it must be judged to ‘unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises’ or ‘injure health or be likely to injure health’. Generally, the noise, its length, timing and location may be taken into consideration when deciding whether a nuisance has occurred.
5. Mr X is concerned with people loading up their vans outside his property every morning from 6am – 7.30am. He is dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his concerns.

The Council has sent to the Ombudsman a copy of an email that it sent to Mr X. In this email a Council officer explains to Mr X that the noises he is complaining about do not represent a statutory noise nuisance ‘whatever time of day or night it occurs’.

6. My final decision is the Ombudsman will not investigate. This is because I have seen information showing the Council has considered Mr X’s concerns. I appreciate that Mr X does not agree with the Council’s definition of a statutory nuisance but, since the Council has considered the matter, the Ombudsman has no grounds to intervene.
7. Mr X responded to my draft decision raising other concerns linked to the Council’s decision to restrict contact with him. The Council has asked Mr X to only contact it via one email address under its ‘unreasonable complainants and unacceptable behaviour’ policy. Mr X is unhappy the Council apparently delays or fails to respond to him when he raises concerns about his neighbours to the email address identified. His emails show he is raising matters such as noise from a neighbour’s trail bike early in the morning plus a neighbour reversing into their driveway late at night with head lights on full beam allegedly unloading noisily and banging their car door.
8. I have carefully considered the additional information Mr X has provided. I do not see evidence of fault in the Council’s responses. It has explained to Mr X that it will only respond if it considers he has provided enough evidence to identify a possible statutory nuisance. That its officers use their judgement to decide not to respond is allowed under its ‘unreasonable complainants and unacceptable behaviour’ policy.
9. On one occasion it seems the Council may have delayed in sending Mr X noise diaries. On 14 November 2019 Mr X emailed the Council to complain about suffering noise from a neighbour’s trail bike (from 4 November to 14 November every day in the early hours). It seems the Council did not send him any diaries until 22 November 2019. Mr X says by this time the issue had been resolved by another party. I do not see evidence of a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate as there is no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions about noise from a van. There is insufficient evidence of injustice in the Council’s response to the complaint about a noisy trail bike.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman