Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s response to her reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour. She disagrees with its decision that it does not have evidence of a statutory noise nuisance and says no action has been taken against her reports of her neighbour smoking cannabis and problems with pets and rat activity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complains that despite her reports of noise nuisance by her neighbour, the Council has decided there is no evidence of a statutory nuisance against which it will take enforcement action.
8. The Council investigated her concerns, installed noise recording equipment twice and attempted to witness her reports of noise by visiting the site. However, it decided, based on the evidence it has, that no statutory nuisance exists and it will not issue a Noise Abatement Notice to the neighbour.
9. It has explained to Ms X that she needs to report cannabis smoking to the police and it has given her contact details to report her concerns about pets and rodent activity.
10. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions properly made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Ms X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision on her case, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it and no grounds on which to base an investigation.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Ms X says the Council delayed in responding to her complaints but it has investigated her concerns, attempted to witness the noise and installed noise recording equipment on two occasions. Clearly Ms X believes her neighbour is a nuisance but the Council has to satisfy itself that a statutory nuisance exists and to date it does not have evidence to support this. It has told Ms X that it is open to her to report any new incidents which it will consider.
12. While Ms X questions the Council’s impartiality because of how it has responded to her neighbour’s complaints about her, there is no evidence to suggest bias or that it failed to follow its normal procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman