Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance from a local wedding venue. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance from a local wedding venue.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complains about noise nuisance from a local wedding venue. She says they can hear music and noise from the venue when events are taking place.
7. Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) are responsible for investigating reports of noise nuisance to determine if it amounts to a statutory nuisance. The duty on WRS is to take reasonable steps to investigate the noise nuisance to decide if it amounts to a statutory nuisance.
8. WRS has evidenced it installed noise monitoring equipment in Miss X’s property to record the noise nuisance, considered Miss X’s noise diary sheets, and completed site visits to witness the noise.
9. The role of the Ombudsman is to review how WRS has investigated the concerns and how it has considered the evidence gathered. I am satisfied WRS has evidenced it has taken reasonable steps to investigate the noise concerns reported by Miss X by:
• Installing noise monitoring equipment in Miss X’s property to record the noise nuisance and considering the noise recordings.
• Considering Miss X’s completed noise diary sheets.
• Completing site visits to witness the noise nuisance.
10. The officer has appropriately recorded its consideration of the noise recordings, including making a note of the noise that can be heard and the decibel level of the noise recorded. Following consideration of the recordings, the officer was satisfied the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
11. WRS also visited the area around the site to witness the noise nuisance. The records made by the officers noted that music was not audible and did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
12. Therefore, an investigation is not justified because we are not likely to find fault. This is because WRS has done what it was required to do as it has taken reasonable steps to investigate. As WRS has properly considered the matter, we could not find fault with the decision that the noise does not amount to a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman