Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his queries about its investigation of a noise complaint about him. The Council has agreed to apologise for the injustice caused and review its process to ensure people subject to noise complaints are able to query the process. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Officer if he believes the Council is withholding information that he has requested.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council issued a Community Protection Warning (CPW) in March 2025 but did not allow him to query the basis of the warning.
2. He also complains the Council has refused to provide him with information he has requested.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended).
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

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. If we investigated Mr X’s complaint about the CPW, it is likely we would find the Council at fault. In August 2025, Mr X contacted the Council to query the warning. The Council did not respond until January 2026. The Council should have provision in place to allow the subject of a warning to query it.
9. We asked the Council to consider resolving the complaint early by acting to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X. We suggested the Council write to Mr X to apologise. We also suggested it review its process to ensure people subject to noise complaints can query the Council’s actions.
10. Mr X also complains the council is withholding information. If he is unhappy about how the Council has dealt with his request for information, he can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which is better placed to consider complaints of this nature. This is the body set to deal with access to information concerns and there is no reason why Mr X should not approach the ICO on this point.

Back to top

Agreed Action

11. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint by apologising to Mr X within one month. It also agreed within three months it would ensure people subject to noise complaints receive comparable communication to complainants.
12. The Council has also identified several other service improvements it will make to how it handles Community Protection Warnings.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint about the way the Council issued the CPW. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
14. It reasonable to expect him to refer his concerns about access to information to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman