The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handling his noise complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council did not properly investigate his noise complaint, and that it had changed its approach to writing to perpetrators without consulting residents. He said that, as a result of the Council’s failings, he had to live with what he considered to be an unreasonable noise, which affected his health.
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X reported loud music from builders working at a nearby property. The Council asked him to complete a noise diary, which he did, and the Council confirmed receipt. Three weeks later, Mr X sent an updated noise diary. The same day an environmental health officer was allocated to the case and visited. There was no music playing so the officer carried out a further visit the next day, but there was again no music playing.
The officer updated Mr X and asked him to call when the music was playing so they could witness it. Mr X said he could not use the telephone due to a disability, so the officer agreed he could email.
Mr X emailed to report music on two consecutive days. On the second day, the officer visited. Their record stated they could hear noise from inside their car, but it did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
Mr X made two further noise reports. The officer confirmed they had visited the previous week, but the noise did not meet the threshold to amount to a statutory nuisance, so the Council would not be taking further action. Mr X was unhappy with the response, and another officer visited. They noted a hammering noise and a radio playing. They asked the builder to turn down the radio, which they did. The builder said there was less than two days of building work left to do.
Mr X made a formal complaint. The Council responded promptly and addressed the issues he raised. It set out the action it had taken, explained how officers assess if a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance and confirmed they were not required to take sound measurements. It said it had respected Mr X’s wish not to assess the noise from inside his property, which it would usually do, and for him to communicate by email rather than telephone. On this basis, it did not agree it had taken advantage of his disability.
We will not investigate this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The Council has taken the action we would expect to investigate the noise report. Whether the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance is a judgement for the environmental health officer to make using their professional judgement. It does not need to use noise monitoring equipment in every case. The Council adjusted the way it considered the noise report and they way it communicated with Mr X in light of his disability. The Council explained it no longer sent letters to perpetrators of noise until he had assessed the extent of the problem. That was an operational decision, and it was not required to consult residents before making it.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman