Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance from the boiler in his block of flats. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against a statutory nuisance noise complaint for which the Council were the perpetrator.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

• 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

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X is a tenant in a flat. The Council are the freeholder of the building. There is a boiler room which is located next to Mr X’s flat and serves the building.
5. Mr X submitted noise complaints to the Council due to the noise coming from the boiler room. Mr X complains the Council have not investigated the noise as a statutory nuisance or taken enforcement action against themselves to stop the noise but have instead asked their repairs team to investigate.
6. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it had carried out boiler functionality tests, regulatory compliance checks, and acoustic testing in and around the boiler room. They found that the boiler was operating properly, the room and surroundings were compliant with the relevant regulations, and the sound levels in and around the boiler room were within the expected operating range.
7. The Council also confirmed it offered to install noise monitoring equipment in Mr X’s flat. However, Mr X rejected the offer and complains that this was not an independent and impartial process because the environmental health department were working with the repairs team.
8. I am unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against itself for the noise coming from the boiler. The Council is a single legal entity, one department is not able to act independently of another, and they do not have the power to take enforcement action against themselves. It was therefore appropriate for the matter to be referred to their repairs team.
9. Further, the Council investigated the boiler and did not find any issues. They offered to install noise monitoring equipment in Mr X’s flat to further investigate, but Mr X rejected this offer. I am satisfied they took appropriate steps to assess the noise, and they have confirmed that the offer of noise monitoring remains available to Mr X.
10. Under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a member of the public can take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it. It is open to Mr X to pursue this.
11. We cannot investigate complaints about property disrepair. If Mr X would like to complain about the freeholder of his property, he can bring his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to manage his noise complaint through their repairs team.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman