Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise and vibration from her neighbour’s property. She says the Council’s investigation was biased, it used the wrong noise recording equipment, that it dismissed her evidence and relied only on her neighbour’s account. She also complains about the Council’s delay in responding to her complaint.
2. Miss X says the prolonged noise and vibration has seriously affected her health and wellbeing. She wants the Council to re-investigate the noise by installing suitable noise monitoring equipment capable of detecting low-frequency noise and vibration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X complained about noise and vibration from her neighbour’s property caused by household appliances and slamming, banging and throwing of objects.
8. The Council arranged a visit to Miss X’s property to witness the alleged nuisance. It determined the noise did not reach the threshold for a statutory nuisance because it was relatively low level and typical of normal household activity. However, it acknowledged the impact of repeated disturbances and had informal discussions with Miss X’s neighbour about how to reduce vibration and noise transmission.
9. The evidence I have seen shows the Council took steps to investigate the alleged noise nuisance. Miss X may be unhappy with the noise equipment the Council installed but that did not make its investigation inadequate, nor mean the Council was biased. It was entitled to reach a decision based on the noise logs and its monitoring visit. The Council also took appropriate informal action with Miss X’s neighbour to reduce the impact of the noise disturbance. There is, therefore, not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating.

Complaint handling

10. There were delays in the Council responding to Miss X’s complaint. As a public funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. As we are not investigating the substantive issue concerning the noise nuisances, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman