Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to her reports of noise nuisance caused by a neighbour’s motorbike. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to reports of noise nuisance caused by a neighbour’s motorbike.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. In September 2020, Miss X contacted the Council about noise caused by a motorbike belonging to a neighbour. Miss X first raised this issue with the Council in 2017. Miss X said her neighbour would regularly rev the motorbike for long periods, at the same time each day. Miss X provided the Council with diary sheets showing when the noise occurred and how long it lasted for. Miss X is unhappy the Council has not acted and that it has not provided her with noise monitoring equipment. Miss X also complains a letter meant for her was sent by the Council to her neighbour.
7. In its stage 2 response to Miss X the Council explained that officers had visited the site on three days and had remained there between 05.45 and 08.00. They did not witness noise which was considered a statutory nuisance. It explained It had a limited number of noise monitors and tended to use them when the Council would be unlikely to be able to witness the nuisance. But, because Miss X’s diaries said the noise occurred at the same time every day, the use of the monitors was not considered necessary. This was because officers could visit the site to investigate.
8. The Council accepted a letter meant for Miss X had been sent to her neighbour in error. It had reported this to its data protection team.
9. The Environmental Health Act 1990 places a duty on Council’s to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance. Generally, the statutory nuisance will need to be witnessed by the Environmental Health Officer if the Council is to serve an abatement notice on the person making the noise.
10. But it is ultimately a matter of professional judgement for the Council officer involved as to whether any noise witnessed constitutes a statutory nuisance. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of such a decision unless there is evidence of fault in the way it was reached. In this case, officers considered Miss X’s diary sheets and visited the site. They reached a professional judgement that the noise reported did not amount to a statutory nuisance, and so further action was not appropriate. Councils can choose to take informal action if the noise complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not considered a statutory nuisance. However, it is under no duty to do so. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to investigate.
11. I understand Miss X is concerned the Council has sent a letter meant for Miss X to her neighbour. The Council has accepted its mistake, but if Miss X wants to pursue this issue, she should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is the expert body set up by Parliament to consider complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman