Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a report of a potential noise nuisance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly deal with his complaint about a planned party which caused a noise nuisance. Mr X complains about difficulties he faced reporting the matter, that the Council failed to take appropriate action, that procedures in place are inadequate and that the Council breached the Equality Act 2010. Mr X also complains about how his complaint about these matters was dealt with by the Council.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council in regard to the difficulties Mr X faced reporting his concerns about the planned party. Mr X found an email address which the Council no longer uses, but this was not on a Council website. Mr X says the online reporting system does not allow him to correctly enter his address, but I have checked the online reporting system and was able to enter his address without any difficulty.
6. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns. It considered the history at the address and wrote to the neighbours asking them to turn their music down by 11pm. This is a proportionate and appropriate response.
7. The Council did accept that there are deficiencies within its noise policy in regard to reporting, including that it doesn’t currently allow for declaration of disabilities when making reports. The Council is therefore in the process of amending its policy which it intends to put to members for approval before the summer. This is an appropriate response and therefore further investigation into this point would not lead to a different outcome and we will therefore not investigate this matter.
8. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. However, we can consider if the Council had due regard for the Equality Act in its treatment with them. Having considered the Council’s correspondence with Mr X, including his initial report to the Council about the party and its final response to Mr X, I am satisfied that the Council did have due regard for the Equality Act.
9. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about how the Council dealt with his complaints about these matters. However, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate complaint handling when we are not considering the substantive issues raised in a complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman