Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour he has experienced. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has been unwilling to help him following his reports of noise and antisocial behaviour towards himself by people living close to him at different properties. He says they have dismissed the noise as everyday living noise and ignored his evidence.

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, 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about noise and antisocial behaviour directed towards him by people living close to him at properties provided by his landlord, a housing association. His concerns were investigated by both the Environmental Health and the Antisocial Behaviour Teams but the reports were deemed to be normal household noise due to living in close proximity to his neighbours.
7. A case review was carried out with partner agencies but it was decided the initial investigations had been appropriate and that the noise reported by Mr X did not meet the threshold of antisocial behaviour. Mr X appealed this decision but the decision was upheld.
8. While this is disappointing for Mr X, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions 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. The Council investigated Mr X’s reports but found no grounds on to which to base further action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and we cannot review its merits.
9. Housing matters which relate to the housing association fall outside our jurisdiction and cannot be investigated. However, the Council has already provided details of the Housing Ombudsman Service which can consider such complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint 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