Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation into an alleged statutory nuisance from a neighbouring business. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained to the council about noise and vibrations from a neighbouring business near her home.
2. Miss X is unhappy the Council has not taken formal action and says she the Council is ignoring her correspondence.

Back to top

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says the alleged nuisance is ongoing and causes her distress. She says the problem has been ongoing for more than a year. She reported her concerns to the Council and is unhappy with its decision that the issue does not amount to a statutory nuisance.
7. We are 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.
8. The Council’s responses to Miss X’s complaints set out how it investigated the issue and the reasons for its decision. This shows the Council monitored the noise over a prolonged period of time including out of hours site visits and the installation of noise recording equipment.
9. The Council has also spoken with the business and, despite the noise not amounting to a statutory nuisance, the business has taken steps to improve the situation for Miss X.
10. The Council’s actions in this case follow the normal processes and I have seen no fault in the way it dealt with Miss X’s concerns. We cannot therefore criticise its decision that the noise does not amount to a statutory nuisance, so we will not investigate further.
11. If Miss X remains unhappy with the Council’s decision and wishes to pursue the matter privately against the business, she may do so by applying to a Magistrates Court under Section 82 of The Environmental Protection Act 1990. This is not an appeal against the decision taken by the Council, however the court may reach a different decision based on the evidence Miss X provides about the noise itself and it has the power to issue an abatement notice if it accepts the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman