The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to serve the complainant with a Noise Abatement Order. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his legal right to appeal against the serving of the order in court and to have raised these matters as part of his defence.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to serve him with a Noise Abatement Order. Mr X says the Council failed to properly communicate with him prior to issuing the order and did not include relevant information within the order. Mr X says the Council should therefore cancel the order.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine. A person who receives an abatement notice has a right to appeal it in the magistrates’ court.
I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. He had a legal right to appeal against the serving of the Notice in the court. It was reasonable to expect him to use it and raise these matters as part of his defence in court.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had a right of appeal to the courts, and it is reasonable to expect him to have used this right.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman