Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a noise nuisance. This is because the court is better placed to deal with the issue and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y wants.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to act to stop to an ongoing noise nuisance. Mr Y says the Council served an abatement notice and then enforced this through the courts, but the business causing the nuisance has not adhered to the order and the problem is continuing. He is also unhappy the Council closed his complaint without a written response and without his agreement.
2. Mr Y says he is still suffering from the noise nuisance, causing him upset, frustration and significant inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y lives next to a local business. He has been subject to a noise nuisance from the business since 2018. The Council served an abatement notice on the business in June 2019, which was quickly breached by the owner. After it issued notices to the owner, warning of legal action if the nuisance was not stopped, the Council took the matter to court and a trial was held.
7. The trial was initially due to be heard in June 2020 but was relisted several times by the court. The business owner was then found guilty of failing to stop the noise, which is a criminal offence. The court ordered the owner to take specific steps to reduce and prevent the noise nuisance in January 2021.
8. The owner breached the order within a few weeks of the court’s order being made. Mr Y reported this to the Council in March and complained to the Council. Council officers visited Mr Y’s property shortly after this and agreed the nuisance still existed. It then issued a notice to the business for having breached the order.
9. In March the Council spoke to Mr Y about its next steps and warned that while it could prosecute the owner again, the process was likely to be lengthy due to delays in the court system. At this point the officer thought the complaint Mr Y had made was closed following their discussion and closed the complaint down on the Council’s system.
10. The Council then held a case conference and agreed it would ask the court for an injunction against the business and order that the business be closed. The Council later submitted papers to court at the end of July 2021.
11. Mr Y contacted us in July 2021, asking us to investigate. At this point the Council became aware that the complaint remained unresolved. It responded in writing to Mr Y in August, apologising for the confusion. However, it said it had acted to try to stop the nuisance, with delays in the process being caused by the delays in the court system. Mr Y then came back to us and asked us to investigate. He said he wanted the Council to act to stop the noise nuisance as a remedy to his complaint. Mr Y also said the matter is due back in court in October 2021.

Analysis

12. Mr Y says he wants the Council to act to stop the noise nuisance. From the timeline set out in the Council’s complaint response, the Council has acted to serve an abatement notice on the business owner and has then taken legal action to enforce the notice and prosecute the business owner. Following the prosecution and court order, the Council has taken legal action against the business owner again, which is due to be considered by the court shortly.
13. As the Council is already taking legal action against the business owner, in accordance with the legal process. We do not have the legal power to stop the nuisance from recurring, or to make orders against the business owners. We cannot therefore achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking to remedy his complaint. Further the court, who do have this type of power, is due to consider the issue shortly, so it is better placed than we are to deal with the issue and provide Mr Y with a remedy to his complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
14. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Consequently, we will not investigate how Mr Y’s complaint was handled by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the court is better placed to deal with the issue and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman