Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to deal with noise nuisance from a nearby business which he has complained about since 2014. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints. Mr X’s current noise nuisance case is still being investigated by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council has failed to resolve his complaints about noise from a nearby business. He made complaints about the noise in 2014, 2016, 2019 and 2020. He wants the Council to make the company mitigate the noise problem and meet with the residents of his street.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives near a business which he says has been causing noise nuisance to residents by machinery on the premises. He complained to the Council in 2014 and the case was investigated by the Council. The case was closed after Mr X reported the noise had ceased. He made a further complaint in 2016. The company made some minor changes following investigation by the Council. Mr X did not return diary sheets provided for him to record the nuisance and the case was closed in July 2016.
6. He made a further complaint about noise nuisance in 2019 but did not arrange for the Council to deliver noise recording equipment which it was offering. Without sufficient evidence of nuisance, the Council closed the case. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the matter was not brought to our attention within 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the fault.
7. In 2020 Mr X made a further complaint and the investigation is ongoing. The Council says access has been limited by the COVID-19 restrictions. To date visits to the site have not produced sufficient evidence that a statutory nuisance is present. Without this the Council cannot serve an abatement notice which carries a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.
8. The current complaint is still being investigated and the Council’s officers must decide whether or not there is a statutory nuisance to abate. The Ombudsman is concerned with failures of process. If there has been no flaw in the process through which a decision has been taken the Ombudsman has no power to challenge the merits of the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints. Mr X’s current noise nuisance case is still being investigated by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman