Summary: We will not investigate Mrs F’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance reports and her complaint about the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

The complaint

1. Mrs F complains about how the Council handled her reports of noise nuisance from a nearby park. She says the noise has affected her mental health and her family’s quiet enjoyment of their home. She also complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint about this matter. She wants the Council to consider her evidence and take action to stop the noise.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I also considered the Council’s noise complaints process, available on its website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
7. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

8. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person.
9. In its complaint response to Mrs F, the Council said it understood she was dissatisfied because it had not resolved the noise and apologised for the distress she had experienced. It acknowledged that she said the loud noise significantly interfered with her home, every day and up to 9.30pm at night, and she wanted the Council to reduce the park’s opening hours.
10. The Council said it decided the noise Mrs F complained about would not amount to a statutory nuisance if proved. It said this was because it was reasonable to expect this noise from a park, including from children playing and using the play equipment. It said this meant it could not use powers which are available to deal with noise amounting to statutory nuisance.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. Although I acknowledge that Mrs F says the noise is causing her and her family distress, it appears the Council has considered her complaint in line with its process and the relevant laws before reaching its position. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it has considered the matter to justify investigation.
12. Mrs F also complains the Council delayed responding to a complaint she raised about the same matter in 2024.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has now issued its final response to Mrs F, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs F’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman