Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action following his reports of noise from the commercial premises below his flat. The Council did not identify a statutory nuisance and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation and decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action following his reports of noise from the commercial premises below his flat and that the process took too long.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives in a flat located above a commercial premises. He made reports to the Council of a noise nuisance coming from the commercial premiss
6. The Council investigated the reports and arranged with the commercial premises for a fan to be replaced. This did not resolve Mr X’s noise complaint.
7. The Council proceeded to conduct an investigation using a variety of techniques, including multiple site visits by multiple officers and noise monitoring equipment.
8. Based on their investigations, officers concluded they had not identified a statutory noise nuisance to Mr X’s property from the commercial property below. This meant they did not have grounds to take any enforcement action.
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 processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes here to warrant an investigation. Officers followed their investigative process and gathered relevant information to reach their decision not to take further action. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone does not agree. Whilst Mr X feels the process took too long, there is no evidence of undue delay with the Council concluding its investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman