Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s response to his report of noise nuisance from a neighbour’s building works. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s response to his report of noise nuisance from building works being carried out by a neighbour. He says the work disturbed his peace and he expected the Council to contact the neighbour instead of it expecting residents to complete noise nuisance diaries.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information Mr B provided which included the Council’s responses to his complaint. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B contacted the Council to report that a neighbour was carrying out noisy building work at his home on a Sunday. He told the Council he wanted it to contact the neighbour about this rather than requesting the completion of noise nuisance diaries by residents.
5. The Council responded by explaining the investigative process it follows in cases where noise nuisance is reported. It told Mr B that as part of this process it asks complainants to keep a diary to log relevant incidents and that in cases where noise diaries are not completed, it will treat such cases as a one off incident and they would not be regarded as a statutory nuisance. It told Mr B what he could do if he wanted to take his own legal action against his neighbour under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
6. It told Mr B that as part of its investigation an officer had visited the neighbour who had confirmed he had removed an internal wall on a Sunday morning but that all major work had been completed and he did not foresee any further works which would cause residents concern. The Council concluded its response to Mr B’s report had been proportionate and fair and it did not uphold his complaint.
7. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr B contacted the Council again but it told him it would be taking no further action. Mr B subsequently reported further banging and drilling at the neighbour’s property one evening at around 8pm.

Assessment

8. I understand Mr B has been upset by having his peace disturbed by a neighbour’s building works and that the Council did not take the action he would have liked. However, the Council responded appropriately to his concerns and I have seen no evidence of either fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman