Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over her complaint about noise nuisance from her neighbours. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council failing to properly investigate her complaints about noise from her neighbours. She says it did not properly consider her evidence and phone recordings and refused to accept there was a statutory 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, 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

4. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Miss X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X says her neighbours have caused noise nuisance since she moved into her home. She complained to the housing association which is the landlord of her neighbour’s property. The landlord told her the noise was domestic family noise and would not take action against its tenants. It referred her to the Council who are responsible for investigating noise nuisance complaints.
6. The Council considered Miss X’s complaint evidence and concluded that the noise was not a statutory nuisance because the complaints were about the noise of four children in a domestic setting. This would not meet the criteria in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for being a nuisance likely to be prejudicial to health.
7. The Council also said that the noise was not an example of anti-social behaviour and children of a young age were not considered to be carrying out disturbance maliciously. It would not be practical to serve any abatement notice for domestic noise as there would be no prospect of it having a result and it would be open to appeal as being unreasonable.
8. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. For these reasons we will not consider the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman