Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance made against leisure business premises in his locale. He says it took too long to respond to him and investigate, that it ignored relevant information and relied on false information in coming to a decision not to take enforcement action and that his mental health has been ignored.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about noise nuisance coming from leisure business premises about half a mile from his home.
7. The Council investigated his concerns with the case officer visiting Mr X at home and the business premises on a number of occasions but it found no evidence of a statutory nuisance against which it should take action.
8. This is a disappointing decision for Mr X but the merits of it are not open to review by the Ombudsman. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision.
9. There was delay in initially responding to Mr X’s reports of the noise nuisance in 2022 and in replying to his complaint. However, the Council apologised for this and there are insufficient grounds which warrant further consideration of these matters.
10. Mr X says the Council has not taken his personal circumstances into account. However, it has explained the legal position to him that someone’s personal circumstances are not relevant in deciding whether a statutory nuisance exists.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman