Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has investigated and dealt with her reports of noise from land near her property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a property with fields behind. The land’s owner has machinery in use in the field. Mrs X complains the Council has:
1. failed to properly investigate her complaint about noise caused by the machinery, including not taking full account of her noise diary;
2. refused to reopen their investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mrs X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 nuisance. The standard of evidence required for such a nuisance is that which would be admissible at court. 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.
6. 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.
7. In response to Mrs X’s reports about the noise, the Council received her completed diary sheets. Diary sheets cannot be the only evidence used by officers in a noise enforcement case. Councils can use diaries to identify the times of reported noise incidents to inform their next steps. In this case, officers installed noise monitoring equipment at Mrs X’s property to try to capture a calibrated record of the noise which could be admissible at court as evidence of a statutory nuisance. They also conducted site visits in response to Mrs X’s reports but either could not attend, or when they could, did not witness a statutory nuisance. The Council’s officers determined they had not collected recorded evidence of or witnessed a statutory noise nuisance on which they could base enforcement or other action.
8. When 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 Mrs X disagrees with the officers’ decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Mrs X also complains the Council has refused to reopen her case or open a new one. It is not fault for a council to not reopen a previously investigated case where its officers have not received new evidence which demonstrates a statutory nuisance. The Council’s duty to investigate noise reports remains so if Mrs X considers there is a new incident which could be a statutory nuisance, she should report this to officers. It would continue to be for the Council’s officers to consider any report received and decide what action, if any, they should take.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman