Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s alleged failure to address his complaints about noise nuisance in 2018 and 2019. The complaint is late and no worthwhile outcome can be achieved through investigation of the complaint at this time.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s alleged failure to address his complaints about noise nuisance in 2018 and 2019.
2. Mr X says he has been suffering noise nuisance from a neighbouring property since 2017. Mr X says:
• His local MP made an enquiry into the matter on his behalf but an enquiry order was not followed.
• The Council did not register the correct address when he made a complaint which led to delays in the handling of the case.
• Members of the Anti-social behaviour team did not record the case as a statutory noise nuisance despite witnessing the noise for longer than 15 minutes and taking written notes on more than one occasion.
• An officer witnessed the noise nuisance in September 2018 and only then recorded the noise as a statutory nuisance despite months of continuous campaigning.
• The Council did not serve an abatement notice until October 2018 as one officer forgot to do it.
• The anti-social behaviour team attended his home in 2018 and witnessed noise nuisance but failed to issue a fixed penalty notice.
• He contacted the Council about the failure to issue a fixed penalty notice in January and March 2018 without any response until March 2018.
• He made four complaints and asked the Council to consider the complaint at the second stage of its complaints procedure on two occasions. The complaints were not investigated. Two of the complaints were made in June and September 2018. The other two were made in June and August 2018.
• He did not receive a response from an anti-social behaviour officer following a request in March 2019.
• He attempted to contact the same anti-social behaviour officer in August and October 2019 but did not receive a response. On some occasions, he received a delayed response.
• A customer service team member refused to tell him her name or report his concerns to the anti-social behaviour team.
• A housing officer told him she could not take action because she required evidence from more than one neighbour.
• The anti-social behaviour and housing teams failed to follow a set housing policy.
• The Council did not take a balanced position given the extremity of the case.
• He was directly threatened by the perpetrator of the noise nuisance.
• His personal information was leaked to the perpetrator.
3. Mr X says he now suffers feelings of anxiety whenever he hears a heavy bassline. He is unable to sleep due to disturbances at night. He is tired and unproductive at work. He is currently received professional help to overcome his anxiety and trauma. Mr X wants the Council to compensate him for the injustice he suffered due to its alleged failures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

7. 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

8. I considered the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone.

Back to top

What I found

The 12 month rule

9. Section 26B of the Local Government Act 1974, as amended, inserts a time limit for a member of the public to bring a complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. A complaint must be brought to the Ombudsman before the end of 12 months beginning with the day on which the person affected first had notice of the matters alleged in the complaint.

Complaint background

10. Mr X complained to the Council about the matters listed here at some point in 2020. He then complained to the Housing Ombudsman Service. That body referred Mr X back to the Council because he had not exhausted its complaints procedure. The Council sent its final complaint response to Mr X in July 2020. The Council informed Mr X he could complain to the Housing Ombudsman Service if he remain dissatisfied with its response.
11. Mr X then made another complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. That body referred Mr X to this service in January 2021. Mr X complained to this service in March 2021.

Analysis

12. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman more than 12 months after he was aware of the matters he now complains about. It is clear the alleged failings of the Council set out above occurred in 2018 and 2019. So, I am satisfied the complaint is caught by the time restriction.
13. We would not normally look at complaints which are over 12 months old unless there is an exceptional reason. Even then we are unlikely to look at historical allegations because they may be too old for an effective investigation.
14. I have considered whether there are good reasons to accept this complaint for investigation out of time.
15. I note there was a delay by the Council in investigating Mr X’s complaints and the present complaint includes a ground of complaint that the Council failed to respond to contacts from Mr X. It may be that there was a delay before the Council sent its final stage complaint response of July 2020 to Mr X. I note that he was also given information that he should complain to the Housing Ombudsman Service rather than this service which affected the time before Mr X complained to this Ombudsman.
16. There are incidents in 2019 which could be within jurisdiction if I consider the clock started ticking from July 2020. So, the 12 months would run from July 2019.
17. These incidents involve the antisocial behaviour officer failing to respond to contacts from Mr X or delaying a response to Mr X. But these incidents, when separated from the earlier events which form the backbone of Mr X’s complaint, would not in themselves cause a significant injustice or lead to a worthwhile outcome if investigated.
18. I am concerned about the outcome of an investigation by the Ombudsman. I asked Mr X whether he has made complaints of noise nuisance in the past 12 months. Mr X had not because he says his focus was on resolving these issues with the Council.
19. An investigation into whether, for instance, the anti-social behaviour officer failed to respond to Mr X in 2018 or 2019 could lead to a finding of fault by the Council. But such a finding cannot be taken into account by the Council in terms of a remedy for ongoing noise nuisance. This is because any evidence of noise nuisance from that period cannot now be taken into account by the Council.
20. I do not find there are good reasons to exercise discretion to accept this complaint for investigation now.
21. Mr X can complain to the Council and then the Ombudsman about any present failings in the handling of his reports of noise nuisance. But a complaint about the Council’s failings in 2018 and 2019 is out of time for investigation by this service.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I discontinued this investigation and closed the complaint because the matters raised here are out of time for investigation and there is no worthwhile outcome that can be achieved through investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman