Summary: There was minor fault in the Council’s response to Mr B’s official complaint which caused delay and frustration to him. There was no fault in the matter complained about, the Council’s response to Mr B’s request for out of hours noise monitoring.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complains that a Council officer delayed responding to an out of hours call about noise from a neighbour where the Council had previously served an abatement notice.
2. Mr B also complains the Council did not respond to his official complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the papers put in by Mr B.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. I gave the Council and Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

8. The Council served a noise abatement notice on Mr B’s neighbours in 2015.
9. Mr B rang the Council’s out of hours noise service at 22:15 on 8 November 2018 about loud music from his neighbour. The Council officer (Officer Y) rang back 23:00 but had the wrong number. Officer Y found the correct number and rang Mr B at 23:50. Officer Y explained that they were on a pre-arranged visit but would call when the visit had finished. Officer Y’s notes then record that Mr B made threats against his neighbour, which Officer Y reported to the police.
10. Mr B rang the Council’s out of hours noise service at 22:13 on 19 April 2019 about loud music from his neighbour. The officer on duty (Officer X) returned the call at 22:38pm, she told him she was aware of the abatement notice. Officer X told him there were a few calls before him and she would call him as soon as they were free. Officer X called Mr B at midnight to apologise for the delay. Mr B told Officer X the noise had stopped.
11. The Council has said that a call before Mr B’s call was to a property that had had an abatement notice served on it.
12. The Council has said that it aims to respond to calls to the out of hours noise service within an hour. If this is not possible, officers will call to advise of any delay due to high demand for the service. The Council has said that complaints where an abatement notice has been served are prioritised.
13. Mr B emailed the Council’s Chief Executive on 23 April 2019. He said that ‘he was wondering if the abatement notice was fit for purpose as his call to the noise service had not been prioritised (because of the abatement notice) and the officer could not visit before the noise stopped.
14. On 30 April a complaints officer emailed Mr B to say that enquiries are dealt with firstly by the relevant service area and she saw that Mr B had already copied the safer communities team in.
15. Mr B replied on 1 May, at this point he mentioned a ‘stage one complaint’. The Chief Executives complaints officer emailed Mr B the same day to inform him that the Chief Executives office only dealt with stage three complaints and gave him the email address for the relevant service area.
16. Mr B emailed the Chief Executive again on 27 May 2019. The Manager of the safer communities team replied on 18 June and offered to meet with Mr B. A meeting was arranged for 25 June. Mr B cancelled the meeting 30 minutes before it was due to start and requested a formal investigation instead. The manager offered another meeting or to find out what had happened to the formal complaint if Mr B sent him a copy.
17. A housing complaints officer told Mr B that it did not have an outstanding formal complaint from him and asked him to send a copy in July 2019. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman at this point.
18. The Council told the Ombudsman it is difficult to assess the reason why Mr B’s complaint of 23 April 2019 was not logged or responded to. The Council said there has been much correspondence between Mr B and various officers. He complained to multiple services, and his complaints were non-specific and contradictory.  The Council said that Mr B did not meet the manager or clarify his outstanding complaint.

My analysis

19. Mr B complains the Council delayed responding to his out of hours noise complaint. I find no evidence of delay. The officer called Mr B back, explained that she was dealing with other calls and intended to visit as soon as possible. The officer was aware that Mr B’s neighbours were the subject of an abatement notice, however, one of the officer’s other calls also had an abatement notice served. The noise stopped after one and a half hours so the Officer did not then need to visit. Officers are not always able to respond immediately to complaints, it is not the fault of the Council that multiple complaints had been made on the same day and Mr B was kept informed of the likely time the officer would visit. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
20. Mr B also complains the Council did not respond to his official complaint. Mr B’s email of 23 April 2019 said he was making an enquiry and did not use the word complaint. In response to Mr B’s email the complaints officer emailed back to say that as the housing department had been copied in she would expect them to reply.
21. While Mr B could have been signposted to the correct service area when he emailed the Chief Executive’s office on 23 April, this was done on 1 May, so I find no fault on this point.
22. The Council’s target is to respond to stage one complaints in 10 working days.
23. I do think it was clear from Mr B’s email of 30 April, when he referred to a stage one complaint that he wanted to make a formal complaint about the noise service on 19 April and his email of 26 June clearly said he wanted a written response to his complaint.
24. Mr B never received a formal written response to his complaint from the Council. The Council has said this is because Mr B cancelled the meeting and did not respond to the Council’s email asking for further details of the complaint. The Council has said that Mr B has made several official complaints before and knows the formal complaints process.
25. The Council’s website has an online form, with a specific section for noise nuisance complaints. If Mr B had used this, it would have ensured that his complaint was dealt with formally, according to the timescales set down by the Council, if that was what he wanted. Mr B also could have provided the further information requested in response to the Council’s email of July 2018 or met with the officer to explain his complaint.
26. It was reasonable for the Council to ask for further information but the emails Mr B had already sent did explain his complaint so I do think he should have received a formal written response from the Council.
27. There was clearly some confusion between Mr B and the Council, when he complained about the response from the noise service. However, as I find no fault in the Council’s actions and his complaint was about one occasion when the Council’s service could not get to him quickly enough I am not convinced the Council’s actions when considering the complaint emails are a fault that needs a remedy. The Council would not have upheld Mr B’s complaint, but responding to him formally after he cancelled the meeting and requested a written response would have prevented the matter escalating. The Council did not adhere strictly to the timescales in its complaints process and did not provide a written response, which was fault.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is partially upheld, the minor fault in the Council’s complaints process did not cause injustice to Mr B that needs a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman