Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a noise nuisance compalint. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a farming site which he says is operated as a commercial business and causes noise nuisance from visiting vehicles and dogs. He says the Council failed to give sufficient priority to noise recordings made in 2023/24 and that the views of its officers failed to balance the evidence correctly.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council’s officers have failed over the past 3 years to identify noise nuisance which he says is caused by business operations at a nearby farm as a statutory nuisance. He says he is woken at dawn by quad bikes starting in silence and disturbed by persistent dog barking throughout the day. Yard noise, machinery and shouting prevent him from enjoying his garden.
6. The Council has reviewed collected evidence and recordings and says that the frequency and levels of the noise within an agricultural environment are not sufficient to confirm that they present a statutory nuisance.
7. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on councils to investigate reports of nuisance and to take reasonable steps to investigate any complaints of statutory nuisance that it receives. Only a qualified Environmental Health Officer can decide if there is a statutory nuisance based on the evidence available. There is no duty to serve an abatement notice if the Council decides there is no statutory nuisance present.
8. These notices carry a right of appeal to the magistrates court and the resident can appeal if they believe the notice was unreasonable or incorrectly served. This means the Council would have to have a case which could be reasonably defended at appeal and if there is not sufficient evidence it should not serve a notice.
9. We cannot overrule the Council’s decision on whether or not to take action. It is not our role to say whether the noise that someone is complaining about is a nuisance in law or whether action must be taken to reduce it.
10. The Ombudsman is 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 followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a noise nuisance compalint. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman