Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of noise nuisance complaints made against her by her neighbours. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, complains about the Council’s actions in investigating noise nuisance complaints made against her by neighbours who have been issued with a restraining order.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Ms B and reviewed the information she and the Council provided. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered the response she made.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B has a history of dispute with her neighbours against whom a restraining order has been issued.
6. The neighbours complained to the Council about noise nuisance from loud music at Ms B’s property. The Council investigated the complaint but found the noise did not constitute a nuisance.
7. The Council received a second complaint from the same neighbours about noise nuisance from dog barking. Before deciding whether to proceed with the second investigation the Council sought legal advice as to whether the existence of a restraining order imposed against the occupant of a neighbouring property should override the Council’s duty to investigate. The advice received from its Legal Team was that it should not, so the Council carried on with its investigation.
8. The Council monitored the noise and an officer witnessed excessive barking. The noise abated for a time but as a recent complaint said the noise had returned to earlier levels the Council kept the complaint open.
9. Unhappy that the Council investigated the complaints made against her by her neighbours, Ms B complained to the Council. It addressed her complaints under its complaints procedure but satisfied itself it had dealt with matters appropriately. It explained the legal advice it had received, the action it had taken and why the complaint remained open. It also addressed Ms B’s concern that she had been recorded without notice by explaining she had been sent a letter warning that it might employ noise monitoring without any notice.
10. In responding to our request for information, the Council has confirmed that as it has received no further complaints it will be closing the case against Ms B and advising her of this.

Back to top

Assessment

11. Despite the restraining order in place against Ms B’s neighbours, the Council has a legal duty to investigate complaints of noise nuisance it receives. It properly sought legal advice which clarified that it was obliged to fulfil its duty and investigate the second complaint about dog barking. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with matters here.
12. The Council explained its position regarding the use of noise monitoring equipment in investigating noise complaints and explained why its Chief Executive declined to meet Ms B despite her requests that he do so.
13. While Ms B expected the Council to provide a more frequent update on her case, the Council has explained it did not agree to do so. However, regardless of what was said and understood, the Council has now confirmed there have been no further complaints and it is closing the case.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman