Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled Mx Z’s complaints about noise nuisance. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mx Z says they have been waiting since February 2024 for a response to their complaints of noise nuisance from an industrial site. Mx Z says the noise has caused stress, physical ailments and adversely affected the quality of their life. Mx Z would like a meeting with the Council plus compensation for the distress caused.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 the Council’s complaint response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits.

6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a significant matter.
7. The Council’s complaint response outlined that its officer’s site inspections in October 2024 (two times) and February 2025 did not witness any noise nuisance.
8. I also note that Mx Z’s reports of noise nuisance were first made in February 2024 but the Council does not appear to have acted until 8 months later. I note the Council’s complaints response does not explain the reasons for its delays, which is fault.
9. However, as the Council’s investigations, albeit delayed, did not find evidence of noise nuisance, I do not find indication of an injustice significant enough to warrant our involvement. So, we will not investigate.
10. I should also add the Council’s acknowledgement of Mx Z’s complaint says the noise complained of needs to be monitored with a ‘calibrated sound level meter’. And the Council’s complaint response also asks Mx Z to let the Council know if they want noise monitoring equipment installed. Mx Z may wish to consider this option to evidence the noise they complain of.
11. Finally, it is open to Mx Z to take their own private action in the magistrates’ court against the company responsible for the noise. This option is available under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mx Z’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman