Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his complaints of noise from a neighbouring flat. This is because there is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about noise from a neighbouring premises. He complains that the Council has not investigated his noise complaints properly. Mr X said there could be some underlying bias or discrimination that influenced the way the Council handled his noise complaints.
2. He also explained that the issues have affected his health and well-being.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained about ongoing issues of noise from a neighbouring premises. He said the issues have affected his health and that the Council has not done enough to address the noise nuisance.
8. In its complaint response the Council explained how it has investigated Mr X’s complaints. The actions of the Council show it has considered and responded to multiple complaints, including the substantive issues.
9. The Council has listened to audio and video recordings provided by Mr X and offered to install a digital noise recorder in his premises.
10. The Council has decided that Mr X’s noise complaints do not meet the threshold for statutory nuisance, and we cannot question the merits of their decision.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we cannot determine if the noise complained of constitutes a statutory nuisance.
12. Mr X said that there may have been some underlying discrimination or bias against. I have seen no evidence to justify investigating this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his noise complaints and allegations of discrimination. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation, and we cannot question the merits of its decision that the noise does not meet the statutory threshold.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman