Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s noise nuisance complaint regarding a licensed property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council’s handled his report of noise nuisance at a pub. He believes the Council failed to conduct an objective investigation and that the process was unnecessarily prolonged and intrusive, causing him avoidable distress and infringing on his Human Rights.
2. Mr X wants the Council to arrange an independent investigation of his complaint and take appropriate action based on its findings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains about ongoing noise nuisance from a nearby pub, which he says has been occurring since 2020. He stated in addition customers visiting the pub pass by his property, causing daily disruption into the early hours of the morning.
8. We will not investigate the early part of Mr X’s complaint. The law says we cannot look at matters the complainant has been aware of for more than 12 months unless we have good reason to. I have seen no good reason why Mr X could not have come to us sooner. Therefore, we will only consider those events which took place from January 2024.
9. After reporting a noise nuisance to the Council, it tasked him to complete diary sheets, which he did over a two-week period into January 2024. In the following months, the Council installed an audio recording device in his property on two separate occasions, each for a week. The device was placed in his bedroom, as Mr X reported the noise was disturbing his sleep.
10. Upon evaluating the evidence, the Council’s officers have not been able to determine that the noise coming from the pub amounts to a statutory nuisance and closed his case.
11. Following the Council’s decision, Mr X complained to the Council, stating its investigation was not objective and its audio transcripts contained inaccuracies. He further said the Council failed to make him aware the device would record continuously rather than at specific times when he activated the device, leading to the device recording his private conversations with his wife.
12. The Council clarified that whether a particular noise amounts to nuisance is taken from the officer’s analysis of the noise being complained about. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists. This approach was in line with its’s guidance on its website where it states there cannot be a set noise level that is applicable to every case.
13. The Council further clarified the device continuously records sound level data in a graph format but only captures actual audio when activated. Additionally, it records a short period before activation to account for any delay in the user’s response to the noise.
14. The Council stated the officer who installed the device likely informed Mr X about the pre-recording feature. However, the leaflet provided to him did not formally clarify this. The Council apologised if the installation and recording process was not clearly explained at the time and confirmed it has since reviewed and updated the leaflet to provide clearer guidance for future users.
15. The Council has taken the action we would expect in response to Mr X’s report of a noise nuisance. It has considered the evidence and its powers to act. It liaised with the license holder who took voluntary measures to improve the situation such as directing its patrons to ‘leave quietly’. It decided there were no grounds for formal action. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way it made that decision to justify investigating.
16. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we 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, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
17. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not tell him the recording device continuously recorded. The Council has apologised and reassured him the transcribing officer would not make any judgments on the recorded conversations. Therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
18. If Mr X believes the Council has discriminated against him under the Human Rights Act, that would be a matter for the courts. Therefore, I cannot see any good reason why Mr X cannot go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman