Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over his complaints about nuisance from his neighbours in 2018. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council failing to take action against the neighbouring tenants of his housing association landlord and a private owner. He says he made complaints to the Council and his landlord in 2018 but it did not take any action. In late 2018 he says the Council accused him of creating a nuisance by playing load music which he believes was unfair.

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.

(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.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council and his housing association landlord about noise nuisance from his neighbours in 2018. He says his landlord did not take his complaints seriously and the Council refused to take action against his neighbours. The Council wrote to him in September 2018 and told him that the noise he had described and recorded were general domestic noise and could not amount to a statutory nuisance. It sent a further letter to confirm this in January and June 2019 following visits to Mr X’s home.
5. In November 2018 the Council wrote to Mr X and told him that it had carried out noise monitoring of his own flat following complaints and that it had evidence of loud music being played which could constitute a statutory nuisance. Mr X denies being responsible for this.
6. Mr X says the Council’s anti-social behavior team failed to take the matter further following the submission of diaries by Mr X. He was referred back to his social landlord. He says the landlord’s anti-social behavior team staff were rude to him and he has subsequently made a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman service.
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. The Council has a duty to investigate complaints about possible statutory nuisance. It investigated Mr X’s complaints and sound recordings and concluded there was nothing which could be classified as a statutory nuisance.
8. The Council had a duty to investigate complaints about noise from Mr X’s home by his neighbours. It decided from sound recordings that loud music could be a statutory nuisance and sent him a warning letter which it was required to do. There is no evidence of fault in these actions. We cannot consider Mr X’s complaint about his social housing landlord.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman