Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly investigate his complaints about noise nuisance caused by his neighbour repairing cars, over the last eight years. The Ombudsman will not investigate as some of Mr X’s complaint is made late, and as the noise nuisance has ceased, he can achieve no meaningful outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that a neighbour has been running an illegal garage or car repair business from their home. Mr X is unhappy about the noise caused by this business.
2. Mr X complains that the Council failed to take suitable action despite contacting it on various occasions to raise complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and given him an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X first complained to us in April 2017 about the Council’s response to his complaints of noise nuisance from his neighbour, who Mr X believed was running an illegal car repair business from his home. We referred the complaint back to the Council as it had not finished dealing with it. The Council provided its complaint response to Mr X in July 2017. Mr X did not pursue the complaint but asked the Council to investigate his ongoing noise issues. The Council did this and concluded in December 2017 that there was no statutory nuisance.
8. Mr X contacted the Council again in April 2018 and it re-opened the case. It investigated and concluded again, in late 2018, that there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance. It asked Mr X if the noise was continuing; Mr X did not respond and so the Council closed the case.
9. Mr X contacted the Council again, about the noise, in April 2019. The Council asked Mr X to supply updated diary sheets, but it says Mr X did not do this. Despite this, the Council visited the address, but no noise nuisance was witnessed. The case therefore remained closed.
10. In November 2019, Mr X complained to the Council about how it had dealt with his case. Mr X then complained to us in January 2020.
11. My understanding is the noise nuisance ceased around June 2019. I have asked Mr X to confirm this but he has not replied. The Council has had no noise reports from Mr X since this time.

Analysis

12. Mr X complained to us for the second time in January 2020 about the Council’s response over the preceding eight years.
13. We will not investigate what happened prior to Mr X first complaining to us in 2017. Mr X did not pursue his complaint with the Council in 2017 nor refer the complaint back to us.
14. When we receive a complaint about a problem that has been ongoing for more than a year, some of that complaint will be made late to us, see paragraph 3. In this case, Mr X’s complaint about what happened from April 2017 to January 2019 is made late. There were breaks during this time when Mr X did not pursue the matter with the Council and he has not explained why he did not complain again to us sooner. I do not consider therefore that there are good reasons to investigate a complaint about this period now.
15. What took place between January 2019 and when Mr X complained to us in January 2020 is within our remit. However, the Council had closed the case in December 2018 and Mr X did not contact it again until April 2019. The Council says it received no further reports of noise nuisance from Mr X after June 2019 and my understanding is the noise nuisance ceased around this time.
16. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we could achieve any meaningful outcome regarding the Council’s response during this short period of time. Also, as the noise nuisance ceased over a year ago, it is difficult to see what meaningful outcome we could achieve now by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

17. My decision is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because some of Mr X’s complaint is made late, and as the noise nuisance has ceased, he can achieve no meaningful outcome for Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman