Summary:  We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council’s Noise Team failed to deal properly with nuisance noise from a tenant. He says that the Council’s processes and policies make it too easy for nuisance neighbours to cause deliberate disruption with little risk of being identified or held responsible. He says he has endured nuisance noise since 2022. The noise regularly wakes him throughout the week and includes music, shouting, banging, and repeated door slamming.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X said he had been reporting noise complaints to the Council since 2022. I have only considered matters from February 2025 onwards, because those earlier noise complaints are now late. This is because they occurred more than 12 months before Mr X complained to us in February 2026. And I have not seen any good reasons why Mr X could not have raised them to us sooner.
8. We are 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 has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
9. The Council reviewed the evidence recordings Mr X provided and explained why the 2025 noise complaint did not meet the threshold for a statutory noise nuisance. The Council offered Mr X a professional witness so it could assess the nature of the noise, but he declined the service. The Council also gave him information about further steps he could take to monitor and report the noise. A Resident Services Officer offered Mr X mediation, which he declined. Mr X disputes he declined the Council’s offers of mediation and a professional witness. The Council explained Mr X’s right to take private action about nuisances in the magistrate’s court.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman