Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise nuisance issues. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal against a Noise Abatement Notice. Further investigation into the seizure of equipment is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council dealt with his reports about a noisy neighbour.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr B, complains the Council:
• failed to send him a warning letter before serving a Noise Abatement Notice on him
• failed to tell him about his right to appeal against the Noise Abatement Notice
• unlawfully seized equipment from his home which was not listed on the warrant authorised by the Magistrates Court
• sent a letter to his neighbour warning that it had received a noise complaint about them; and
• failed to properly consider his complaint about noise from his neighbour

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

4. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council says its internal records show officers prepared an informal warning letter. This was to tell Mr B that it had received a complaint about him regarding noise, and if the noise continued an Abatement Notice may be served. Unfortunately, it says for an unknown reason, the letter was not sent. The Council can offer no explanation for this other than a potential glitch in its computer system. It apologised to Mr B. However, it confirmed that there is no legal obligation to send warning letters.
9. The Council accepts it did not send a warning letter and has apologised. I consider this is a suitable remedy to this part of Mr B’s complaint.
10. The Council served a Noise Abatement Notice on Mr B. He says he did not know that he had a right to appeal against the Notice.
11. However, the Council confirms that details of the right of appeal to the magistrate’s court against the abatement notice are written on the back of the Notice document issued to Mr B. I find it is reasonable to expect Mr B to have read the information and for him to have used this right of appeal to dispute the notice. Only the courts can decide a dispute about whether a person is causing a statutory noise nuisance. Because Mr B had a right of appeal against the abatement notice the restriction described at paragraph 3 above applies to this part of Mr B’s complaint. We would not investigate any related complaint about the Council’s handling of its investigation.
12. Mr B complains the Council unlawfully seized equipment from his home which was not listed on the warrant authorised by the Magistrates Court. The Council states it has sought legal advice which confirms the warrant was lawful. However, it accepts the wording could have been clearer. As a gesture of goodwill, it has allowed Mr B to reclaim his property without paying any recovery costs. It has also apologised for the time taken to resolve this matter.
13. I do not propose to investigate this matter as Mr B has received an apology and the opportunity to reclaim his belongings at no charge. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
14. Mr B complains that following his reports of noise nuisance caused by his neighbour, the Council sent the neighbour a warning letter. He says this is unfair as he received no such warning letters. The Council has explained that its records show Officers intended to send Mr B a warning letter and has apologised for not doing so. I do not consider that sending the neighbour a warning letter is fault on the part of the Council.
15. The final point raised by Mr B is the Council failed to consider his reports about noise generated by his neighbour properly. I disagree. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment in Mr B’s home. It says it assessed the recordings and found the recordings showed low frequency noise, but this was not at a specific frequency which stood out from other noise. The Council decided that no statutory nuisance exists.
16. I understand Mr B disagrees with the Council’s view. However, once the evidence is gathered, environmental health officers will assess the information, in this case the recordings. They will consider details including the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The Officer(s) will then use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists. I have seen no evidence to show the Council failed to follow the correct steps before deciding the neighbour is not causing a statutory noise nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

17. For the reasons described above, we should not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman