Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over her complaints about nuisance and noise in her area. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council failing to resolve her complaints about nuisance from barking dogs, dog waste and noise from people meeting in public spaces near her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mrs X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X says the area outside her home is noisy from neighbouring residents and their dogs. She says the noise from the estate makes it difficult for her to live in her home without earplugs. She also complained about dog mess in the streets.
5. The Council visited her home and installed monitoring equipment in 2018. It also asked her to complete diaries of the nuisance. The Council concluded that the matters which she was complaining about did not constitute a statutory nuisance. It informed her of her private rights to take action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council also sent an officer from the Anti-Social Behaviour team to the site but there was no evidence of activity which warranted action.
6. Mrs X wants the Council to prevent people from congregating on the pavement outside properties in the area and making noise. The Council has no powers to do this and the Police could only do so if there was evidence of crime or disorder.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. The Council has investigated Mrs X’s complaints about nuisance, and it is for the Council to decide whether or not a statutory nuisance exists.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman