Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his noise complaint. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council handled his noise complaint. He complained to the Council about this and he is unhappy with its response.
2. Mr X says the noise is ongoing and continues to cause him immense distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained,
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2023, Mr X made a noise complaint to the Council. The Council assessed the noise and determined it did not amount to a statutory noise nuisance.
7. In 2024, Mr X contacted the Council about its handling of his noise complaint. He asked the Council whether it had also considered if the noise amounted to anti-social behaviour, and if not then why not. The Council initially did not respond to Mr X’s contact and he later made a complaint about this.
8. The Council later apologised to Mr X for not responding to his contact. The Council further explained why his initial noise complaint did not amount to a statutory noise nuisance. The Council also provided Mr X with information about further measures he could take to monitor and report the noise.
9. Mr X is unhappy the Council did not respond to his query about whether it considered if the noise amounted to anti-social behaviour. He says the noise is ongoing and continues to cause him immense distress.
10. I acknowledge Mr X is dissatisfied the Council did not clearly respond to his queries. Whilst I acknowledge this, I do not consider this has caused significant injustice to Mr X that would justify our involvement. Mr X had the option to raise a separate anti-social behaviour complaint with the Council. He did not do this. Therefore, I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault in the Council not considering whether the 2023 noise complaint amounted to anti-social behaviour. I also do not consider that an investigation by us now would be able to determine whether the noise amounted to anti-social behaviour.
11. I understand the noise is ongoing and continues to affect Mr X. We therefore asked the Council whether it would open a new case to consider if the ongoing noise amounts to anti-social behaviour, or a statutory nuisance, and to communicate those outcomes to Mr X. The Council has agreed to do this. I consider this action to be an appropriate remedy for any ongoing injustice to Mr X. There is no other worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. Therefore, I will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to open a new case to consider the noise and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman