Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to take action against reports of noise nuisance and breaches of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complainants’ reports to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to take action against a noisy car wash behind his home. He wants the Council to issue a Noise Abatement Notice, increase the height of the fence and have a van moved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council investigated Mr X’s reports of noise, and breaches of planning and licensing control.
6. It confirmed the matters he reported were use of a site by taxi drivers outside of permitted hours. Officers decided the evidence Mr X provided did not meet the necessary threshold to enable it to take action. However, it confirmed it will continue to raise allegations of out of hours use of the site by drivers with the taxi operator.
7. The Council confirmed that original planning permission for the site was granted in 2012 with amendments in 2018 following relevant consultations. It cannot impose new controls or conditions on the site now. Therefore, it cannot make the owner erect a higher fence. But it has passed his request on to the operator for consideration as a gesture of goodwill.
8. Mr X made multiple reports of noise nuisance from the car wash. The Council confirms it installed noise monitoring equipment and reviewed diary sheets and doorbell camera footage provided by Mr X. It confirmed it does not consider the noise is excessive or unreasonable. It also advised Mr X he can ask the magistrates court to consider a private claim of noise nuisance.
9. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, for example, if they are unusually sensitive to noise.
10. We have seen no evidence to suggest the Council did not properly follow normal procedures. It carried out numerous visits but did not find evidence of noise which amounted to a statutory nuisance. Such decisions are for officers to make using their professional judgement and we cannot review the merits of them. It also considered Mr X’s reports breaches of planning but decided there is not enough evidence to take enforcement action.
11. I find no fault with how the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his reports of breach of planning control and noise nuisance to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman