Summary: Mr D says the Council should have investigated his noise complaint further. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council, completed the investigation, and did not uphold the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to pursue his complaint about an alleged statutory noise nuisance (SNN) in 2022.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have spoken to Mr D and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 15 September 2022 Mr D told the Council about a noise nuisance caused by cleaners using leaf blowers at a commercial building near his home. He said once a week the noise started at 6.30 am and disturbed him. On 20 September the case was allocated to an Environmental Health Officer (Officer). He assessed the information and discussed with colleagues. He took account of the distance from Mr D’s home, duration, timing and frequency of the noise and the source. He concluded it would not likely be a SNN. He advised Mr D the same day of his decision.
7. Mr D subsequently submitted a formal complaint. He wanted the Council to investigate the noise and said it was twice a week. The Council replied on 13 October and reiterated the Officer’s decision. It explained it would not take any further action and confirmed there were no time restrictions on the use of a leaf blower. Mr D asked the Council to reconsider his case two days later. The Council sent its final response on 25 October confirming it had found no evidence of fault in how the Officer handled the case.

What should have happened

8. Complaints about noise nuisance are referred to the Environmental Health Team. The case is allocated to an Officer to assess. The Officer should first consider the information provided by the complainant, including the type of noise, duration, frequency, location, etc. If the Officer concludes the noise is unlikely to constitute a SNN they should close the case and notify the complainant about the decision.

Was there fault by the Council

9. Mr D says the Council should investigate his noise case further. I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council. The Officer assessed the information provided by Mr D. He took account of the relevant factors (including location, frequency, duration) and reached a timely decision which was explained to Mr D. The Officer acted in line with procedures. There is no duty on the Council to pursue an investigation where it concludes it is unlikely to evidence a SNN. I appreciate Mr D does not accept the Council’s decision, but the Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decisions in the absence of procedural fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman