Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaints of noise nuisance. This is because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation in relation to more recent events.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints of noise nuisance from tenants from a neighbouring business. He says the noise has existed for three years but the Council closed down his complaints and has become vindictive since he has challenged it and has asked him to start the noise reporting process over again.

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 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)
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council received reports of noise nuisance from Mr X in September 2022 about a business operating from a nearby property. He did not return the diary sheets sent to him and the case was closed.
9. A year later in 2023, Mr X complained again. The Council investigated by considering the diary sheets Mr X had returned, site visits and installing noise monitoring equipment. It did not find evidence of a statutory nuisance but it spoke to the users of the property to confirm they would continue to maintain the shutters and to keep doors closed while classes at the business took place. As no further reports of noise nuisance were received the Council closed the case in December 2023.
10. In May 2024 Mr X contacted the Council to complain again about noise and made a formal complaint when he did not receive a response.
11. The Council acknowledged the contact he had made in May and June 2024 had not been properly responded to. It apologised for this and explained the action it had taken to address the issue.
12. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to past events from 2022. As we would reasonably have expected Mr X to have complained to us sooner, these matters fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and will not be investigated.
13. With regard to the investigation the Council carried out in 2023, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected its decision that no statutory nuisance existed. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal in relation to this decision even though Mr X may disagree with it. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council investigated and made its decision based on its investigation.
14. Mr X objects to having to start the process over again in relation to noise nuisance he says is continuing. However, the Council decided there was no statutory nuisance in relation to past noise but if the situation has changed then it is open to Mr X to contact the Council with this information so it can be assessed.
15. There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with Mr X’s contact in 2024 but it has apologised for this and taken steps to address the issue and there are no outstanding matters which warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation in relation to more recent events.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman