Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation of his noise complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. It would be reasonable for Mr X to provide to the Council for its consideration new information he has about a different noise type he says he is experiencing.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives with his family in a flat with a neighbour above. He complains the Council has failed to properly investigate his complaint about noise from his neighbour.
2. Mr X says the noise nuisance happens every day for six to eight hours and is severely affecting his family and their quality of life. He says they cannot relax at home or focus on work and feel stressed and anxious. Mr X says he not been able to rest well at home after recent surgery and his clinic says the noise is harming his mental health.
3. Mr X wants the Council to send an officer to take further action on the case as it originally agreed. He wants the Council to investigate the case and/or contact his upstairs neighbour to resolve the problem.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Councils have a duty to investigate noise complaints they receive but their powers to take enforcement action in noise matters are discretionary. They may only use their powers where they are satisfied the noise identified amounts to a statutory noise nuisance. The assessment of whether a noise is a statutory nuisance is for officers to make. It is also for officers to decide what investigations of a noise report are required to make their statutory nuisance decision.
9. 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 process an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed the process correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
10. In response to Mr X’s reports about neighbour noise, the Council considered his communications with officers, his case file, and the diary sheets he provided which gave details of the noise. Mr X’s diary sheets reported hearing daily, prolonged and excessive noise from loud stomping. Officers assessed the character, timing, duration, frequency and level of the noise. They considered the type of noise Mr X reported from footfall would arise from normal use of the neighbour’s property. Officers recognised heavy stomping might be considered un‑neighbourly, but that this type of noise would not amount to a statutory noise nuisance allowing them to use their powers and take further action.
11. In making their decision not to enforce, the Council’s officers collected relevant information and followed their investigative process. They were entitled to make their enforcement decision, and the decision on how they investigated the noise. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the officers’ decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. In his complaint to us, Mr X seeks to change his description of the noise he has been experiencing. He now describes the type of noise as ‘deep, repetitive thudding sounds, similar to bass noise from a hi-fi system or distant drums, along with strong vibrations’. This is a report of music noise. Mr X’s reports to the Council were about deep thudding noises caused by heavy footsteps and that is the information the Council had before it and used when making its decisions. If Mr X considers he is now hearing a different noise type, he should refer this to the Council first for its consideration, as a new report. The Council would need opportunity to assess and respond to the new information. If Mr X is not happy with the Council’s actions in response to his new report, he should complain to the Council first before complaining to us. An investigation by us into this new information from Mr X would be premature. It would be reasonable for Mr X to report this new information to the Council first because this would give officers the appropriate opportunity to assess it and decide what action, if any, they should take. The new information may also alter the approach officers take to the matter and provide the further investigation of the noise Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process and decision on the matters complained of to warrant an investigation; and
• it would be reasonable for Mr X to provide to the Council for its consideration any new information he has about a different noise type he is experiencing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman