Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not taking any action to resolve noise made by their neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about excessive noise from their neighbour.
2. They say the Council has failed to take action to resolve the matter and the noise is impacting their quality of life.

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 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In May 2024 Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about noise nuisance from their neighbour’s property.
8. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on Councils to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate when people living in their area complain about a potential nuisance. Where identified, a Council should take action to address any statutory nuisance.
9. To investigate the noise complaint, the Council asked Mr and Mrs X to complete a noise diary, made several visits, including one out of hours, used engineer reports and mediated with the neighbour.
10. Following consideration of the evidence, the Council told Mr and Mrs X it could not enforce against the noise because it did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
11. Further, during its complaint’s procedure, a third, independent, officer investigated. The officer also found the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance and closed the case.

Back to top

Analysis

12. 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.
13. The Council took the action we would expect in response to Mr and Mrs X’s report. It considered the evidence and its powers to act. It decided there were no grounds for formal action. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it made that decision to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman