Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s assessment of the noise nuisance he reported and the lack of enforcement action that followed. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained about:
• The Council did not assess noise nuisance he reported appropriately because it did not visit his property.
• the Councils lack of enforcement after he reported a noise nuisance.

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)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr C. He had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
6. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
7. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.

What Happened

8. In May 2020 Mr C contacted the Council and reported a noise nuisance.
9. On the advice of the Council’s officer Mr C identified the house the noise was coming from and asked for someone to carry out a visit to assess the noise.
10. Mr C says that he asked the officer to visit his property to experience the nuisance the noise is causing.
11. The Council says that a visit to Mr C’s garden was not necessary because the duty officer visited the street where the amplified music was coming from. It said the duty officer assessed the noise closer to the source and did not consider it to be a statutory nuisance.
12. Mr C emailed the Council to express his disappointment at the lack of enforcement action and at the fact the duty officer did not visit his property to assess the noise levels. He says the assessment was not accurate because the duty officer did not visit his garden.

Assessment

13. The Council’s noise nuisance procedure says trained and experienced officers will assess alleged noise nuisance and its likely effect on an average person on a case by case basis. Officers will consider issues such as reasonableness, volume, duration, time of day, frequency, and any particularly disturbing qualities of the noise.
14. A council employee confirmed this to Mr C and said the duty officer assessed the noise and decided a music coming from a one bank holiday party would not amount to a statutory nuisance.
15. Because of this decision, there is no enforcement action which the Council could be expected to follow.
16. I understand that Mr C disagrees with the Council’s assessment of the nuisance he reported, but the decision was taken in line with the environmental health legislation and there is no fault in Councils consideration. We cannot question the merits of a decision if there was no fault in the decision-making process.
17. The restriction outlined in paragraph two applies to this complaint. The Council has appropriately investigated Mr C’s complaint. As there is no fault in how the Council investigated Mr C’s concerns and came to its decisions, I cannot question the decisions made.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman