Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation of noise caused by a business near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation and decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives near a business in a rural area. Its buildings use fans to regulate temperatures in animal sheds. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. failed to properly investigate and gather evidence of the business’ noise;
2. assigned the case to a part-time officer, restricting times for monitoring visits;
3. failed to follow its advertised investigation processes;
4. employs an environmental officer who used to work with an employee of the business causing the noise.
2. Mrs X says the continuing low-level noise from the premises is unacceptable to her in a rural environment. She says she finds the noise makes it hard to concentrate while in her garden and wears noise-cancelling headphones, which she considers she should not have to. Mrs X feels invaded by the noise, inside and outside her house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils have a duty to investigate reports of noise. They also have powers to take various actions against someone causing noise nuisances, from no action, through advice, to formal legal action. But there is no duty on councils to use any or all their powers in all cases. Officers are not bound by generic guidance they issue about how they treat noise complaints. They have discretion to decide how they should deal with each specific case they receive.
7. We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council decision if there is fault in the decision-making process officers have followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a council’s view with our or someone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
8. In response to Mrs X’s concerns of noise from the business, the Council gathered evidence. The noise is dependent on temperature and other weather conditions. Officers visited Mrs X’s property twice in late winter and at least four times over a short period in summer 2024, including on hot and cooler days, and in windy and still conditions. Visits involved officers making their noise assessment inside and outside Mrs X’s property at different times of day and night. The officers decided the noise witnessed on their various visits was not a statutory noise nuisance, so not a noise requiring further, and possibly formal, action against the business.
9. We note Mrs X has concerns about the accuracy of the visit records, the officers’ understanding of the complaint, them not taking a ‘baseline’ noise reading while the premises were not stocked, and limitations on the investigation by it being allocated to a part-time officer. But the core issue is whether the Council’s officers conducted their assessments of the noise complained of to decide whether it amounts to a statutory noise nuisance. The officers did investigations which were relevant to the location and reports received, done at a variety of times. They determined the evidence did not support a finding of a statutory noise nuisance. This was a professional judgement they were entitled to make.
10. The Council assessed the noise in line with its investigative duty and its officers considered the evidence gathered when making their decision not to pursue enforcement. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Mrs X’s complaint to us implies some unspecified impropriety by one of the Council’s officers, based on them having previously worked with a current staff member of the business investigated for noise. She describes this allegation as a ‘hunch’. There is insufficient evidence on this issue to warrant us investigating. There is also no indication Mrs X has put this matter to the Council for it to respond. If Mrs X wishes to pursue this issue, she would need to raise it with the Council, putting forward any evidence she has to support it. It would then be for the Council to decide on its reply.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman