Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council investigated reports of neighbour noise nuisance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response after he reported noise from two sets of neighbours. He says the Council ignored his evidence and should take his disability into account.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s log sheets and the complaint replies. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Councils have a duty to investigate allegations of noise nuisance but a council can only take enforcement action if officers decide there is a statutory nuisance. Officers must consider the impact on the average person and cannot take individual sensitivities into account.
5. Mr X reported noise nuisance from two neighbours. This included dog barking, shouting, music, and door slamming. Mr X submitted noise logs to the Council. The Council twice installed noise recording equipment. Two officers reviewed the log sheets and listened to the recordings. Both officers concluded the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance. The Council explained to Mr X that it has to assess the impact on the average person. It told Mr X he could take action in the magistrates’ court, for noise nuisance, against his neighbours.
6. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response. He says the noise affects his health and this has been ignored by the Council. He continues to assert he is disturbed by noise and found it hard to take recordings.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has assessed the noise logs and listened to the recordings but found the noise is not a statutory nuisance. This is a conclusion the Council is entitled to draw from the evidence. Two different officers reviewed the evidence and reached the same conclusion. Mr X says he found it hard to make the recordings but officers listened to 56 recordings from June but heard only minor noises for a short duration of time. The Council correctly told Mr X that it must consider the impact on the average person and it cannot take his health condition into account.
8. We are not an appeal body and cannot decide if there is a statutory nuisance. I can only consider if the Council followed the correct process when it assessed Mr X’s reports of noise. There is nothing to suggest the Council did not follow the correct process.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman