Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to install sound insulation in her son, Mr Y’s flat because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The complaints about how the Council considered the flat was suitable for Mr Y when offered, and whether it met appropriate building standards, are late and we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating now.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had refused to assess whether her son, Mr Y, needed sound insulation in his property, to meet his disability needs. Ms X said the family were advised Mr Y’s flat would be a sound-proofed pod, but she does not think agreed levels of sound proofing have been provided. She said Mr Y is affected by noise from adjacent flats and from communal areas close by.
2. Ms X says that, due to the Council not providing suitable accommodation for Mr Y, Mr Y is suffering from anxiety and his sleep has been affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Mr Y moved to his current supported accommodation in late 2023. Ms X says she raised concerns about noise and how this was affecting Mr Y soon after he moved in. She said was working continuously with the accommodation provider and the Council to resolve the issues. She made a formal complaint to the Council in March 2025. Ms X asked the Council to carry out an assessment to identify whether Mr Y needed sound insulation installing in his flat to meet his disability needs and whether this could be funded using a disabled facilities grant (DFG), but it declined to do so. She complained to us in August 2025
7. In its complaint response, the Council said:
• the accommodation provider was aware of one occasion when a neighbour caused a disturbance, and that the noise from the park during the day was not something it could control and was general background noise;
• the building complied with Part E Building Regulations;
• if Mr Y’s behaviour was affected by normal everyday noise, it would first want to explore what triggers those behaviours and how best to manage them, before looking at soundproofing, which would not address the underlying noise sensitivity and associated anxiety. It said it had referred Mr Y to its multi-disciplinary team’s psychologist to support Mr Y with strategies;
• Mr Y, as tenant, would need to fund items for his flat, such as specialist curtains, but it could consider whether these were disability related expenses (DRE) if receipts were provided.
8. In response to our enquiries, the Council said:
• fitting sound insulation was not the right choice. Even if insulation reduced the noise sensitivity, which was unlikely, working with Mr Y to help him learn about and understand his triggers would enable the team to support him with a range of interventions that would help him manage his response to noise and thus support his health and wellbeing on a long term basis;
• there was a positive behavioural support plan (PBSP) in place, as well as a care and support plan (C&S plan) and these were due for review in February 2026. A referral had also been made to a learning disability occupational therapist (OT) for a sensory assessment;
• the current supported accommodation meets Mr X's assessed care and support needs and remains suitable for him.

My assessment

9. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. In this case, the complaint was made in August 2025 about events from Autumn 2023. Although I note Ms X was working with the Council and accommodation provider to resolve matters in the meantime, I do not consider we can investigate concerns about how the Council decided the accommodation was suitable for Mr Y when offered, nor whether the building met appropriate building regulations or planning conditions, given the lapse of time. It is unlikely that we could achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating now, particularly as the Council’s position remains that the accommodation is suitable to meet Mr Y’s assessed care and support needs.
10. In relation to the noise insulation and DFG, the first step is to assess whether Mr Y needs an adaptation to meet his disability needs. Although the Council has not considered the matter as a DFG application, it has carried out assessments of Mr Y’s needs and has concluded that installing noise insulation is not the best way to meet those needs. It has referred Mr Y for a sensory assessment, and it confirmed to us that, if the OT recommends it explores sound insulation, it will consider this further.
11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council has made the right decision. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The Council has carried out appropriate assessments to gain relevant information to inform its decision and has communicated the reasons for its decision. Whilst Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s position, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman