Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to concerns regarding his neighbours’ properties. It is unlikely we would find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not take sufficient action in response to his reports of statutory nuisance at neighbouring properties.
2. He says the Council should have taken legal action rather than issuing statutory nuisance notices, and he felt pressured to complete a witness statement.
3. Mr X also says the Council limited his ability to provide evidence. He says it did not offer further opportunities to record noise in the evening, failed to reinstall monitoring equipment when requested, and did not respond to his requests for updates.
4. Mr X says the matter has made him feel unsafe and unsupported in his own home. He would like the Council to take enforcement action and allow him to submit further noise recordings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X made a complaint about two neighbouring properties (Neighbour Y and Neighbour Z) in relation to statutory nuisance.
9. With Neighbour Y, the Council initially issued a Community Protection Notice (CPN) to their landlord, requiring them to reduce noise levels. This was partially due to Mr X requesting it do so after alleged criminal activity against him from Neighbour Y. Following legal advice, which stated the Council should serve notice on the occupiers as they were responsible for the noise, the Council served a notice on Neighbour Y.
10. The Council obtained a warrant to enter the property and seize noise equipment. It began action to prosecute Neighbour Y although it was subsequently unable to proceed because Mr X chose not to provide a witness statement. The Council has taken appropriate steps to tackle the issue, and it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault. And even if we did investigate, it is unlikely we would be able to achieve anything further.
11. In relation to the issues surrounding Neighbour Z, the Council provided noise monitoring equipment and explained Mr X was free to choose when to record. Mr X submitted around six hours of recordings. The Council reviewed the recordings and decided they did not provide sufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance. It informed Mr X of the outcome of its investigation and apologised for delays in responding after receiving the recordings. The Council has taken appropriate steps to tackle the issue, and it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault in this decision. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman