Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over noise from his neighbour’s flat. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s failure to take action over noise nuisance from his neighbours. He says he has been unable to sleep and has had to leave his accommodation recently because of the noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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
• 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

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he has suffered from noise from his neighbour’s flat for nine months. He has been unable to sleep due to continued screaming and says it is affecting his mental health. Recently he has been unable stay overnight in his home. He asked the Council to investigate in 2018.
5. The Council’s officers acknowledged that the screaming was the worst they had heard. However, when they investigated the source of the noise was found to be a crying baby and was not a matter which they could take action against. The Council told Mr X that it was unlikely to be a statutory nuisance and it had legal advice against serving any abatement notice’
6. The Council has a duty to investigate complaints about nuisance. However, we cannot overrule the council’s decision on whether or not to take action. It is not our role to say whether the noise complained about is a nuisance in law or whether action must be taken to reduce it.
7. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman