Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his noise complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and part of his complaint is late.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council ignored his statutory noise complaints.
2. Mr X said the noise has caused distress.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to investigate his noise complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X lives near an industrial factory. Mr X said noise from the factory impacts his ability to enjoy his home. He complained to the Council about the noise in 2023 and 2025. He said the Council did not address his noise complaint.
9. Matters relating to the complaint date back several years. The Ombudsman will not usually exercise discretion to investigate matters the complainant was aware of more than 12 months prior to complaining to us. In this case, Mr X complained about the noise issue in 2023. I have decided not to consider matters before February 2025 because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have complained to us sooner.
10. The Council investigated in line with its noise complaint process. It completed a site visit and found no evidence the factory was creating noise which may be considered a nuisance. They told Mr X to call the Council when noise was occurring so it could complete a reactive visit.
11. The Council received no calls from Mr X. After 35 days it wrote to Mr X with information on how he may take action about noise through the courts and closed his case. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered
    Mr X’s noise complaint.
12. 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. Mr X raised complaints about the Council officer assigned to the investigation and the way they had written to him. The Council considered his complaint and advised it would not change the investigating officer. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered his complaint or how it made the decision to not change investigators.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how it considered his noise complaint and part of his complaint is out of time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman