Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a noise complaint Mr X made to it as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to him to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he received poor service when he made a noise complaint to the Council. Mr X complained:
1. he was promised a call back the same evening but did not receive one,
2. that when he was called, wrong information had been recorded about his report of noise (and this was not the first time this had happened),
3. and he was upset to receive the call back on Boxing Day. Mr X said he considers this day to be sacred due to his religious beliefs.
2. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and would like a ‘thorough investigation’ to be carried out.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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 any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council explained there was a delay in the noise report being passed to the out of hours team and a decision was made not to return Mr X’s call due to the lateness of the hour and as they did not want to wake him. The Council also gave Mr X a telephone number for the out of hours team so that he could contact it directly in future.
8. The Council acknowledged that wrong details had been recorded initially but that the record had been rectified and a noise warning letter had been sent to the correct address.
9. In terms of the call on Boxing Day, the Council explained that out of hours officers work every day except Christmas Day and New Years Day and they had not intended to disturb Mr X but wanted to progress the matter without any further delay.
10. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised to him for what had gone wrong.
11. I recognise that Mr X remains dissatisfied but from our perspective, as the Council explained what happened, acknowledged its errors, and apologised, there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to him to justify our further involvement. In addition, it is unlikely we could add to what the Council has already said or change the outcome of the complaint.
12. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any remaining injustice caused to him is not sufficient to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman