Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a noise complaint made by the complainant in respect of a music festival. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council assessed the complainant’s concerns and whether this amounted to a nuisance. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the merits of a properly made decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains the Council failed to properly investigate his noise complaint which he made in August 2024. He also says the Council has not responded to him in accordance with its complaints policy and procedure.
2. In summary, Mr X says the alleged fault has caused him frustration and stress, as well as time and trouble chasing the Council. As a desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to perform its statutory function to investigate noise nuisance and reply to his correspondence in a timely manner.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. 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).

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

6. I recognise Mr X complains about noise which he says affects his use and enjoyment of his home, and, importantly, about the Council's handling and consideration of this. There are two categories of statutory nuisance under section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) which relate specifically to noise:
1. noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance.
2. noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment (including a musical instrument).
7. Under section 80 of the EPA 1990, a local authority (such as the Council) must take 'all reasonable steps' to investigate complaints about excessive noise. An Environmental Health Officer (EHO) will determine whether it is a statutory nuisance. EHOs are entitled to be considered to be experts by the magistrates' court who will generally accept the view of an EHO who considers that in their professional opinion a nuisance is being caused. The considerations that are included in the assessment of noise nuisance are:
1. Whether it is 'reasonable', bearing in mind the locality.
2. How often noise occurs and its tone and/or volume.
3. How many people are affected.
8. Each case is judged objectively on its merits. For noise to amount to a statutory nuisance, it must be prejudicial to health or be a nuisance which is emitted from a premises, vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street under EPA 1990.
9. In my view, the Council properly considered Mr X's concerns about an alleged statutory nuisance when its EHO responded to him in the same week as his complaint. The Council assessed this by having due regard to relevant factors including volume and frequency. The Council concluded that due to the noise coming from a musical festival (which occurred over three days in August 2024) and this being a one-off annual event, it is unlikely it would be able to establish the noise fell within the definition under the EHA 1990. This is an appropriate and relevant consideration and I see no evidence of fault by the Council in respect of that its assessment. The evidence supports that the Council has taken reasonable steps to consider and respond to the issues raised and it is not my role to question the merits of a properly made decision.
10. Notwithstanding the above, I note the Council said it would consider Mr X’s concerns when holding future discussions with the festival event management and so his efforts to raise these will be acted on. I recognise Mr X says the Council has not responded to his issues during its complaint process. However, the evidence does show clear consideration of the Council’s full assessment of the noise complaint in August 2024. It is unlikely in my view we would find fault with respect to how the Council communicated with Mr X. In any event, I take the view it is not a good use of public money to investigate complaints and complaint handling where we cannot investigate the substantive issue.

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraphs three and four (above) apply.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman