Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to take action against him for allegedly playing loud music. The Council issued him with a noise abatement notice, then fined him when he allegedly breached the notice. We will not investigate this complaint as it would have been reasonable for Mr X to raise both matters with the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to take action against him for allegedly playing loud music. The Council issued him with a noise abatement notice, then a fixed penalty notice. He says the Council acted illegally.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained to the Ombudsman.
5. I considered information the Council provided.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council served Mr X with a noise abatement notice, then a fixed penalty notice when it says he breached the abatement notice, in late 2019. There is a right of appeal against a noise abatement notice. A person can also refuse to pay a fixed penalty notice, and then have their case heard in court. Mr X says the Council discouraged him from taking these actions and so he instead complained to the Ombudsman.
8. The Council says its officer was not threatening, and they informed Mr X about his potential costs should he be unsuccessful in the courts. This is appropriate information for a Council to provide a person, to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to challenge a notice served on them.
9. Mr X says he was not in his flat at the time of the alleged breach. Mr X could have not paid the fixed penalty notice, then argued in court that the breach did not occur. We do not have the same powers as the court to cancel a noise abatement notice or a fixed penalty notice. We should not investigate Mr X’s complaint as he could have challenged both issues in court.
10. Mr X’s complaint to the Council included concerns it did not take action against his neighbours, who he says also cause noise. Mr X has not reported the noise to the Council since 2015, therefore it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault if we investigated that complaint.
11. Mr X’s complaint to the Council also included concern it had breached data protection law by sharing information about him with his landlord. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about organisations’ information practices.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X had a right to challenge the notices in court and it was reasonable for him to use that right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman