The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about noise nuisance.
We have upheld this complaint because Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council failing to take action over evidence he has provided about noise from cockerels in the vicinity of his home. He says the Council’s reporting procedure is over complex and difficult to use.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about noise from cockerels disturbing his sleep and enjoyment of his home. The Council told him it could not accept historic evidence and that he needed to complete diary sheets from the current period for it to assess whether there was sufficient noise to investigate.
Mr X says he made 200 recordings of the noise and that the Council’s explanation of the noise app submissions is not detailed enough and caused him a lot of wasted effort without a satisfactory result.
The Council says that it considers its noise app as part of the framework for establishing a nuisance but that without current diary sheets it will not investigate matters which lack the detail for further investigation as this is not efficient use of its limited resources.
I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to require Mr X to provide evidence in the required format. After Mr X provided details of the records he submitted to the Council the requirements it sent appear to be over-burdensome on a member of the public reporting the nuisance. The onus of the duty to investigate a complaint of noise nuisance remains with the Council under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
We invited the Council to re-consider the evidence provided by Mr X and to take further actions needed for it to decide if the evidence is something which amounts to a statutory nuisance or not. It is for the Council’s own officers to decide if there is a statutory nuisance but this is not something the public can do alone. The Council has agreed to visit Mr X and it officers to make assessments of the nuisance.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about noise nuisance. We have upheld this complaint because Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman