Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about noise nuisance from a neighbouring gym. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about noise from a gym next to his home which disturbed him from early in the morning until late in the evening. He wants the Council to place restrictions on times of use and certain types of weight training and also to improve sound insulation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives next to a gym which is open for most of the daytime. He says his enjoyment of his home is disturbed by noise nuisance from heavy weights and equipment being used which transmits into his flat. He also complained about heat and noise from the air-conditioning units.
6. He reported the nuisance to the Council and it carried out an investigation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council visited the premises and also took sound recordings from property affected by the noise and vibration. The Council concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance but the owners agreed to carry out insulation of the floors in the form of thicker matting to reduce the impact noise and vibration form weight training. They also agreed to remove or modify some equipment and amend the opening hours from early mornings and evening sessions.
7. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the outcome and said the investigation favoured the gym operators. The Council told him that its investigation was concluded and it could take no enforcement action if a statutory nuisance was not identified. It advised Mr X that he has a right to take his own private action against the gym owners under s.82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
8. When considering complaints, we may not question whether the decision the Council has made is right or wrong or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. In this case the Council caried out its duty to investigate the nuisance complaint but it is not required to take action where no statutory nuisance is identified.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about noise nuisance from a neighbouring gym. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman