Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint about noise disturbance. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its statutory nuisance decision. The Council has offered Mr X a suitable remedy for delay and poor communication. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about noise disturbance. He says the Council has delayed progressing the investigation, causing inconvenience, frustration and distress. He wants the Council to investigate his concerns and work to resolve the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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

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. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
7. Mr X first complained about noise disturbance from a neighbour’s dog in early 2024. He submitted diary sheets and the Council said the next step would be to install noise monitoring equipment in his property. However, the Council did not initially progress his case.
8. In its complaint response, the Council upheld there had been delays in its investigation into the matter and poor communication. It apologised to him for this. It said its investigation was ongoing and confirmed it would shortly install noise monitoring equipment in his property to gather further evidence.
9. Since Mr X brought his complaint to us, the Council has completed its investigation. It said it did not find evidence of statutory nuisance but had taken informal action by asking Mr X’s neighbour to keep their dog indoors at night to reduce nighttime noise disturbance. It said the neighbour had agreed to this and was aware that if the Council received further reports of noise disturbance, it would consider further action. It proposed to offer Mr X £100 as a symbolic payment in recognition of the frustration and distress caused by the initial delays and poor communication.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has apologised to Mr X and offered him a remedy payment of £100. This is a suitable remedy for any distress caused by the initial delays and poor communication. An investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
11. The Council has now appropriately investigated the matter. It considered relevant evidence before deciding there was not enough evidence of statutory nuisance to warrant formal action. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decisions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its statutory nuisance decision and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman