Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking any action to resolve the excessive noise made by his neighbour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about excessive noise from his neighbour. He says the Council has not taken any action to resolve the matter. He says the noise is severely impacting the quality of his life.

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 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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about noise nuisance from his neighbour.
7. The Council has a duty to investigate and, where identified, take action to address statutory nuisances. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a statutory nuisance is one which:
• Unreasonable and substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and/or
• Injuries health or is likely to injury health.
8. Under the Act, councils must take reasonably practicable steps to investigate when a person living in their area complains about a potential nuisance. The Council said when deciding if a statutory nuisance is happening, it would assess the level of noise, how long it occurs, and when and where it happens.
9. To investigate his noise complaint, the Council asked Mr X to complete a noise diary and installed noise recording equipment in his property. Following consideration of the evidence submitted by Mr X, the Council was satisfied the evidence showed the noise complained about was general everyday household noise, such as footsteps. The officers who reviewed the evidence was also satisfied the noise was not persistent or continuing in nature.
10. The Council told Mr X it could not enforce against the noise because it was general household noise and did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
11. The role of the Ombudsman is to look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
12. In this case, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process to investigate Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance as it has taken reasonably practicable steps to investigate Mr X’s complaints. There is also clear evidence the Council properly considered the evidence submitted by Mr X.
13. As the Council has made its decision properly, it is able to make its decision that the noise complained about does not amount to a statutory nuisance. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman