Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to act against noise nuisance from his neighbour’s renovation works. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to take enforcement action against the noise nuisance caused by his neighbour’s renovation works. He says this is affecting his health and that of his mother who lives with him and that the Council should act to stop the noise and ensure the property is lived in.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X and his mother live next door to a property which, since 2019, the owner has been visiting to carry out renovation works.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about the noise and disturbance caused by the works and the impact on him and his mother. The Council asked Mr X to keep diary records of the noise and considered the information provided. Having assessed the diary forms officers decided the content of them did not suggest a statutory nuisance because the renovations were being carried out during the day. Officers closed the case but subsequently reviewed matters and indicated they would be willing to visit Mr X but the decision remained unchanged.
9. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of this matter but at the final stage of its complaints procedure, the review panel did not uphold his complaint. It found no reason to question the officers’ professional judgement that the noise he and his mother were experiencing did not constitute a statutory nuisance.

Assessment

10. We are not an appeal body and we cannot question the decisions taken by councils if they have followed the proper policies and procedures and considered the relevant evidence and information.
11. There is no doubt Mr X and his mother are disturbed by the renovations taking place next door to them. However, based on the information and evidence the Council has, it has decided the noise is not a statutory nuisance against which it can take enforcement action. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council came to this decision.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X has stressed the impact on his elderly mother and the length of time the works have been taking place, including during the day at weekends. However, while this is not disputed, to date the Council has not witnessed a statutory nuisance against which it can take enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman