Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not properly respond to his reports of noise disturbance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his reports of noise disturbance and antisocial behaviour regarding market traders. He said the situation worsened over time.
2. He said his complaints have not been taken seriously and it affected his wellbeing. He wants the Council to commit to reviewing and enforcing its market regulations

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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. (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 reported noise disturbance from market traders to the Council in 2021. Mr X did not complain to us until 2025 and therefore this element of the complaint is late. We expect a person to complain to us within 12 months of being aware of a matter, therefore, this element of the complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.
9. Mr X reported noise disturbance to the Council again in 2025. The Council responded to Mr X, said it was actively monitoring the situation and had reminded all traders the importance of respecting neighbours.
10. Mr X then made a complaint to the Council. In its response the Council explained to Mr X that living above a market with over 140 stalls would create a certain level of noise. It said it had again reminded traders that excessive noise would result in disciplinary action.
11. The Council said that Market Officers are on duty from 6.30am to ensure compliance with start times and an Officer remains on site throughout the day. It explained the penalty point system in place to enforce compliance with its market traders licencing conditions and provided evidence of it being implemented.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and showed evidence of it implementing the penalty point system. It also asked Mr X to record any incidents of excessive noise so it could take disciplinary action if necessary. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
13. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman