Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's investigation into her reports of noise nuisance. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to act in response to her complaints of noise nuisance and that it has communicated with her poorly. She says the matter has caused her distress and impacted on her enjoyment of her home. She wants the Council to take action to stop the noise nuisance and improve its communication.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on councils to take reasonable steps to investigate any complaints of statutory nuisance that it receives.
7. 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.
8. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person.
9. Ms X reported noise nuisance in August 2025 and the Council investigated her concerns between August and October 2025. It asked her to submit diary sheets and conducted site visits to assess the noise. It decided there was not enough evidence to conclude that a statutory nuisance existed. It sent the alleged perpetrator an informal warning letter but decided not to proceed with formal enforcement action.
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.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council appears to have appropriate investigated her concerns before reaching its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has considered this matter to warrant an investigation.
12. We will also not investigate the Council’s communication. In its complaint response, the Council said it had reviewed its communication with her about the matter and believed it had communicated appropriately. However, it said it would raise her concerns about communication with appropriate officers as part of its efforts to continually improve its service. We will not investigate this as there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman