Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of noise complaints about a neighbour. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. It is also unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Mr X, says that the Council has failed to investigate properly his noise complaint and take appropriate remedial action against his neighbour. He also says it has failed to consider properly the resulting impact of the noise on his mental health.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information and evidence provided by Mr X and the Council. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and have considered his comments on this.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. In 2019, Mr X complained to the Council about noise coming from his neighbour who had been housed by its temporary accommodation department. Mr X says the noise has had such a negative impact on his existing mental health conditions that he has had to undertake a course of therapy. He complains that the Council has not given due consideration to this or his support worker’s recommendations the Council regularly monitor his neighbour and consider soundproofing.
6. An officer from the Council’s temporary accommodation department visited Mr X’s neighbour twice to inform him of the noise complaints and the impact on Mr X. Both visits took place prior to Mr X notifying the Council of his mental health conditions. The Council has explained to Mr X that it cannot take any tenancy action beyond this. It says this is because there was no malicious intent from the neighbour and the noise does not constitute anti-social behaviour or a statutory noise nuisance. The Council considered Mr X’s support worker’s recommendations and decided it would not be reasonable to pursue these. It said this was because the neighbour was not acting unreasonably and no finding of noise nuisance could be made.
7. The Council has asked Mr X to continue to keep a diary of the frequency and impact of any noise issues. It has advised Mr X to report any noise issues to its environmental health team who can assess if a statutory noise nuisance exists. The evidence suggests that Mr X has not yet done so.

Assessment

8. I understand that Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, particularly in deciding not to follow the remedial action suggested by his support worker. However, the decision as to the suitability of any remedial action is a decision that the officer of the Council was entitled to make. We cannot question the merits of such a decision without evidence of fault in how it was made.
9. The evidence shows that the Council has fully considered Mr X’s complaint. It has taken action in response to his reports of noise issues by visiting Mr X’s neighbour twice and notifying his neighbour of the impact the noise is having on Mr X. Although these visits took place prior to Mr X notifying the Council of the specific impact the noise was having on his mental health, the Council subsequently considered this and the recommendations made by Mr X’s support worker. The Council decided it would not be reasonable to pursue a different course of action than that taken and gave reasons. I therefore do not think there is sufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.
10. The Council has also advised Mr X to contact its environmental health team to raise a noise complaint. It would be reasonable to expect Mr X to do so, particularly as its environmental health team would be best placed to assess if a statutory noise nuisance exists and advise on matters such as soundproofing. I do not think that an investigation is therefore likely to lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. It is also unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman