Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to properly address a longstanding complaint about noise nuisance taking place in Mrs X’s area. This is because most of this complaint is out of jurisdiction on time. An investigation into the remaining parts of the complaint would be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained on Mrs X’s behalf that the Council has failed to properly address low frequency noise which is coming from a nearby business for over 5 years.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council on Mrs X’s behalf regarding low frequency noise coming from a local business that has been negatively affecting Mrs X and others in the area. Mr Y said the issue had been ongoing for over 5 years and they were unhappy the Council was not using its enforcement powers to issue a noise abatement notice.
8. The Council did not uphold the complaint, stating it had visited the business in question and carried out focused monitoring on several occasions, finding no evidence of a statutory nuisance. The Council advised it had previously shared the outcome of this investigation with Mrs X. Mr Y brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on Mrs X’s behalf as they remained unhappy with the Council’s response.
9. The Ombudsman will not usually exercise discretion to investigate events that took place more than 12 months before the complainant became aware of them, unless there are good reasons for the delay. The matters referred to in this complaint have been ongoing for over 5 years. It would have been reasonable for Mr Y to bring the complaint to us sooner.
10. The parts of the complaint that took place within the last 12 months and are therefore within our jurisdiction, show that the Council has carried out several visits to the business at differing times of day and has not determined that a statutory nuisance is taking place. The Council is entitled to make this judgement and there is no evidence of fault in the way it has responded to this matter. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to result in a finding of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because most of the complaint is out of jurisdiction on time. The remaining parts of the complaint would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman