Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about noise nuisance from a scrap yard close to her home. This is because the alleged fault by the Council’s planning department has not caused Miss B an injustice. Also, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the Council’s response to the noise nuisance she has reported.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss B, complains that the Council has not taken action about noise nuisance she has suffered from a metal scrap yard close to her home. Miss B says the noise from the yard is excessive and is affecting her health. Miss B complains the Council should not have granted planning permission for the development where she lives because of its proximity to the scrap yard. Miss B would like the Council to limit the hours of operation for the scrap yard and make the site operator insulate the large machinery.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 Miss B.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Miss B had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss B complains the Council should not have granted planning permission for the housing development where she lives because it is so close to the scrap yard.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. Miss B owns her property. In English law there is a principle of caveat emptor which translates as “let the buyer beware”. The rule places the responsibility on the buyer of a property to carry out all necessary due diligence before purchase. It is reasonable to expect Miss B to have considered possible noise nuisance from the scrap yard, including the hours of operation, before purchase. Miss B would not have suffered an injustice by the alleged fault by the Council if she had decided not to buy the property because of concerns about noise from the scrap yard.
9. Miss B also complains about the Council’s response to the noise nuisance from the scrap yard which she has reported since she moved into her property. The Council has a duty to investigate noise nuisance complaints under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council must serve an abatement notice if it is satisfied the noise is a statutory nuisance.
10. The Council says:
• Officers have visited Miss B three times to assess the noise nuisance she has reported.
• Officers have taken noise readings, which were very low, with the windows open and closed. Officers also assessed the noise inside the property and on Miss B’s balcony.
• Officers who assessed the noise considered noise from traffic was louder than any noise from the scrap yard.
• Officers did not provide Miss B with noise recording equipment because officers were able to visit her property to assess the noise.
• There is some sound from the scrap yard but it is not a statutory nuisance.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation of the Council’s response to the noise nuisance Miss B has reported. The Council has taken reasonable steps to investigate the matter by visiting Miss B’s property to assess the noise. The Council was not at fault for not providing Miss B with noise recording equipment. This is because officers were able to assess the noise during the daytime. Noise recording equipment is normally only used when it is not possible for officers to witness the noise, particularly at night.
12. I have not seen any information to suggest the Council’s handling of the matter has been affected by fault. This means we cannot say the Council’s judgement – that the noise is not a statutory nuisance – was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the alleged fault by the Council’s planning department has not caused Miss B an injustice. Also, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation of Miss B’s noise nuisance complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman