Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council’s handling of complaints about noise. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not properly investigate her noise and environmental nuisance complaint about a neighbouring property. She said the Council failed to install noise monitoring equipment and refused to properly consider her complaint about the matter. She said the noise disruption has prevented her from living peacefully in her home and has had a negative impact on her quality of life. She would like the Council to apologise, install monitoring equipment and respond to her complaint.

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), 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 Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance can include noise from premises.
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. Miss X complained to the Council about noise and vibration disturbance from a neighbouring property.
9. In its complaint response, the Council said it had visited Miss X and the neighbouring property. It asked Miss X to record evidence of alleged noise disturbances for two to three weeks.
10. The Council said it tried to install noise monitoring equipment at Miss X’s property, but access to the property was denied. The Council said it installed noise monitoring equipment within the neighbouring property. The Council completed a stage 1 and stage 2 nuisance investigation and decided there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance at Miss X’s property. It wrote to Miss X to tell her the result of their investigation.
11. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding there was not a statutory nuisance. The Council gathered evidence through diary logs, noise monitoring equipment and officer visits. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Miss X’s concerns and it is entitled to use its professional judgment to decide if a statutory nuisance exists. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached the decision and I therefore cannot criticise its decision.
12. Miss X also complained about how the Council had responded to her complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman