Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council has failed to take effective action to address the noise caused by his neighbour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of administrative fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that PA complains that the Council has failed to take effective action to address the noise caused by his neighbour. Mr B has told us about the detrimental impact the noise has had on his family.

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
• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided and his comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told us, after his initial complaint, the Council emailed and telephoned his neighbour. But, he said, the noise disturbance continued. Mr B said the Council then gave him noise recording equipment which captured some of the noise. He told us on one occasion the noise occurred at 10pm. Mr B told us the noise stopped for a time after a council officer wrote to his neighbour and discussed the matter with him. But he said the noise then returned to its previous level. Mr B complained the Council’s officer then told him there was nothing more the Council could do. Mr B told us the last time the Council gave him the recording equipment he could not capture the noise. Mr B said his neighbour had stopped making the noise because he had recognised the Council’s officer and knew she was delivering recording equipment.
6. In its response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it had provided noise recording equipment for seven weeks in total over a five-month period. The Council said Mr B had provided his own audio recordings and an officer had visited outside normal working hours. It said it had tried to resolve the situation informally. But it had concluded that, since November 2019, the nature, frequency and duration of the noise incidents were not frequent or serious enough for it to take formal action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council summarised the relevant case law.
7. Councils will issue an abatement notice if they find noise is a statutory nuisance. Mr B told us there is plenty of evidence to support the issuing of an abatement notice which would resolve the situation. Whether a noise is a statutory nuisance is a subjective decision for a qualified environmental health officer to take. The level of noise, its length, timing and location may be taken into consideration in making this decision. A complaint to us is not the same as an appeal. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to substitute his judgement for that of the Council’s officers. Instead he examines the process leading to the Council’s decisions for evidence of fault. In this case there is insufficient evidence of administrative fault in the way the Council reached its decision that the evidence it had did not justify formal action. The Council advised Mr B of the option to take legal action himself against his neighbour.
8. Mr B has asked why the noise is continuing if the Council has done everything correctly. Case law has established a statutory noise nuisance must be sufficient to cause distress to a person of normal sensitivity. Sometimes, when a complainant is genuinely disturbed and distressed by continuing noise from a neighbour’s property, councils may find that objectively, the noise is insufficient to amount to a statutory nuisance. So they cannot issue an abatement notice.
9. If the nature, frequency and duration of the noise has now changed and become significantly worse, Mr B can provide further details to the Council and ask for another investigation.

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of administrative fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman