Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise nuisance because an investigation would not be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion and the Council has amended their practices.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council delayed responding to his complaint that his neighbour had caused a statutory nuisance when carrying out work to his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about noise nuisance from his neighbour in August 2022. The Council replied asking him to complete a log sheet detailing the nuisance.
6. Mr X says that his neighbour was using a pneumatic drill in November and this occurred sporadically until January 2023. The Council offered to install noise monitoring equipment in January 2023 but Mr X said that it was too late by that time.
7. The Council accepts that they should have responded earlier to the complaints and have agreed a series of measures to ensure that such complaints are dealt with in a timelier fashion.
8. I sympathise with the nuisance suffered by Mr X but we do not consider that any investigation would be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion as to the injustice caused to him. We cannot conclude conclusively that a statutory nuisance was caused (the neighbour could argue there was not alternative way to carry out the work – which is a defence to such a measure). Nor could we conclusively state that work was carried out outside of any planning condition limits.
9. Further the Council has agreed to remedy any inadequacies in their system (which was exacerbated by a shortage of staff). This is as much as the Council would seek were an investigation to be critical.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman