Summary: We will not investigate Mx Y’s complaint about the Council’s licensing panel decision on the licence of a nearby premises, that it failed to deal with noise nuisance from the premises, failed to visit the premises when noise was being reported, and failed to deal with a letter sent by the premise’s owners to those raising noise complaints. Mx Y had a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court against the panel decision which it was reasonable for her to have used. The complaints about Environmental Health (EH) officers’ actions and the premises owner’s letter are late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate them now. Even if we exercised discretion to consider the late complaint about EH officers, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mx Y lives near some licenced premises. She complains the Council:
1. was biased in its licensing panel decision against residents’ evidence in favour of the premises’ owner and dismissed an independent expert report about the noise;
2. has failed to deal with repeated noise nuisance from the premises;
3. failed to make visits to the premises at times when noise was being reported;
4. failed to deal with a letter sent by the premise’s owners to some residents who were raising noise complaints.
2. Mx Y says the noise has affected her health and caused her stress. She says it has affected her sleep and use of her property, and she cannot open the windows in summer. Mx Y says she had to move out in some summer months because of the noise and is having to install secondary acoustic glazing in her bedroom.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information from Mx Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mx Y and other residents applied for a review of the premise’s licence. The licensing panel considered the review and determined it had not found evidence of a breach of the licence which warranted further action, other than the amendment of an existing condition. Mx Y’s core complaint is about that panel decision and how it dealt with the evidence submitted by her and other review applicants and the Council’s noise nuisance evidence. Mx Y had the right of appeal against the licensing decision to the Magistrates Court and knew about that appeal right when it was issued. We recognise Mx Y chose not to appeal due to the risk of having to meet others’ costs if the appeal failed. But it is for the courts to deal with those challenges to their decisions. It would have been reasonable for Mx Y or other residents involved to seek to challenge the panel’s decision by appealing as that is the route put in place by national government for someone to challenge a licensing panel decision. We will not investigate the panel’s decision and its process.
9. Part of Mx Y’s complaint is that the information about noise nuisance from the premises gathered by Environmental Health (EH) officers, which the panel considered, was flawed. The EH officers’ actions fed into the licensing process, but are still a separate service which we can consider. However, the EH officer actions complained of happened in 2022 and 2023, the latest in March 2023. We expect people to complain to us within 12 months of them becoming aware of the matter they bring as a complaint. Mx Y made her complaint to us in December 2024 so this part of the complaint is late. We understand Mx Y decided to pursue the noise issue as part of the licence review process instead of complaining about the EH process. But that was her decision to make alongside her fellow complainants.
10. We have discretion to investigate late complaints if we consider there are good reasons to do so. But Mx Y was aware of the outcome of the EH’s involvement at the time. If Mx Y considered the Council’s EH actions to be flawed, she could have complained to the Council and then to us much sooner and in time. We also note the licensing panel considered the EH evidence as part of its process. As explained above, it was for Mx Y to challenge that decision at appeal, which could have included her concerns about the EH noise evidence. There are no good reasons for us to investigate the complaint about the EH officers’ actions now.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we would not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we would look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
12. Even if we did accept these late complaints, we would not investigate. EH officers did over 20 unannounced visits at various times to witness noise over several months in 2022. They based visits on Mx Y’s and other residents’ noise diaries and other information about potentially noisy events at the premises. Licensing officers also did four visits out-of-hours up to spring 2023. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment in Mx Y’s bedroom and another resident’s property in 2022 and it says no statutory noise nuisance was recorded. The evidence of noise witnessed or recorded was determined by officers not to reach the threshold to require service of a noise abatement notice or other action against the premises. That was a professional judgement they were entitled to make.
13. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the EH officers’ processes here to have warranted an investigation. Officers took appropriate actions in response to the reports to identify the noise complained of. We recognise Mx Y disagrees with the way officers investigated the noise. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
14. Mx Y also complains about a letter the premises owner sent to her and other residents in 2023 warning them of possible consequences of pursuing their noise complaints. The letter is dated early 2023, so this matter is also late. Mx Y is claiming the letter amounts to a possible offence by the owner of tampering with witnesses. There are no good reasons to investigate this late issue now because an alleged offence by the owner would be a police matter, not an action of the Council, and so not a matter we can investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mx Y’s complaint because:
• she had a right of appeal against the licensing panel decision at the Magistrates Court which it was reasonable for her to have used; and
• the complaint about Environmental Health officers’ actions in 2022 and 2023 is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now; and
• even if we exercised discretion to consider the late complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault by Environmental Health officers to warrant us investigating; and
• the complaint about a letter sent by the premises owner is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman