Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act against noise nuisance from the bar near Mr A’s flat. This is because there is no evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr A, says that since relaxation of the COVID restrictions in April 2021, his quality of life and his health have been negatively impacted by loud music and customers’ noise from the bar nearby. He says that the loud music and vibrations have prevented him and his wife from sleeping, working and studying. Mr A wishes for the Council to take effective measures to stop the noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I also reviewed Mr A’s comments to the draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In April 2021 Mr A notified the Council of loud noise coming from the bar near his flat. The Council investigated and assessed it as a statutory noise nuisance. The bar owner agreed to put measures in place which would mitigate impact of music and customers’ noise on the neighbourhood.
8. The Council carried out further monitoring visits which confirmed the bar’s compliance with the agreed plan and the effectiveness of the implemented measures. The Council determined that the levels of noise heard in Mr A’s property were acceptable.
9. Mr A does not agree with the Council’s assessment of the noise levels. He considers that the implemented changes are not sufficient. In his comments to the draft decision Mr A stated that there were several visits from the noise officers, the most recent one in the middle of September, which confirmed loud music and low frequency sound causing vibration from the bar.
10. In Mr A’s view the noise officers’ comments confirmed his assessment that the noise exceeded acceptable levels. However, this is not consistent with the Council’s position. We have no grounds to assume that the Council is acting in contravention with its own noise officers, sent to Mr A’s flat to establish impact of the noise from the bar. The fact that in April the Council considered the noise levels as excessive and worked with the bar to reduce them shows that it genuinely bases its findings on the assessment from its experts.
11. All the evidence suggests that the Council fulfilled its statutory duties when notified of the excessive noise from the bar, by investigating and ensuring compliance with the new mitigating rules. Mr A and the Council differ in their assessment of the current noise levels and whether they constitute a statutory nuisance. Despite Mr A’s comments to the draft decision there is no evidence that visiting noise officers considered music and low-frequency sound in Mr A’s flat as excessive and reaching levels of a statutory nuisance.
12. We do not comment on judgements councils make unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision. If Mr A does not agree with the outcome of Council’s assessment of the noise, he can pursue the matter in the Magistrates Court.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr A’s complaint because there is no evidence of Council’s fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman