Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her noise and odour nuisance complaints in connection with a business close to her home. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has made a flawed and arbitrary interpretation of the law in connection with her complaints about noise and odour nuisance emanating from a business close to her home which has resulted in its decision that there is no statutory nuisance against which it can take enforcement action. She also complains about its handling of her complaint about this matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In response to Ms X’s complaints of noise and odour nuisance from a nearby business, the Council visited the site on a number of occasions, spoke to the business operator and listened to noise recordings provided by Ms X. Having done so, it decided that due to a lack of evidence that there was an unreasonable odour, the odour was not a statutory nuisance and that the noise from the business was not at an excessive level given the approved and historical use of the site.
8. These are disappointing decisions for Ms X but they are not evidence of fault by the Council. It is not our role to question decisions a council makes if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. Officers are required to use their professional judgement in making their decisions and we cannot review the merits of them.
9. While the Council has acknowledged it was at fault in failing to respond to Ms X’s initial complaint and in failing to include a contact telephone number, these are not matters which warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman