Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered reports of noise nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s investigation into a dripping noise she heard outside her property. She disagreed with the Council’s decision it was not a statutory nuisance.
2. Ms X also complained about the temporary accommodation the Council provided her. She said:
• the mattress and sofa were not fit for purpose; and
• the Council should not have issued her a tenancy warning for abusive behaviour. She said she is neurodiverse, therefore its decision to issue the warning was discriminatory.
3. Ms X wants financial compensation for the noise nuisance and poor quality of furnishings. She wants the Officer who sent her the warning letter dismissed and for the Council to change its ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X said she could not sleep at night because of the sound of dripping water. Following her report of noise nuisance, the Council visited her property. It heard the drip, however did not consider it was loud enough to be considered a statutory nuisance. It took no further action. Ms X complained. She said the Council had not considered her neurodiversity in making its decision.
8. It is not our role to say whether a noise complained about is a nuisance in law or whether action must be taken to reduce it. We can only consider whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. Noise nuisance is judged on how it affects the average person, and not around the specefic sensitivity of individuals. I am satisfied the Council took sufficient steps in considering Ms X’s reports of noise nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. We will also not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the furnishings supplied in her accommodation. The Council has stated these are compliant with legislation. It agreed to remove and store the sofa if Ms X wanted a different one. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
10. As part of Ms X’s tenancy, she signed a tenancy agreement with the Council. In that she agreed not to use “abusive or insulting words or behaviour, damaging or threatening to damage another person’s home or possessions, writing threatening, abusive or insulting graffiti, doing anything that interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people."
11. The Council issued Ms X a tenancy warning letter after she sent it abusive messages. These repeatedly targeted named individuals. In its complaint response, it explained it had considered her neurodiversity, but explained that did not mean she could act in an abusive manner towards staff. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has issued warning letters in line with its Policy. The Council is entitled to have a policy that protects people from abuse. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council considered noise nuisance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman