Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a noise complaint. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the previous investigation by the Council and investigation by the Ombudsman will unlikely lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The Complainant, who I refer to as Miss H, complains about the Council’s handling of a noise nuisance complaint about her property. She said the Council sent her a letter alleging noise nuisance from her property without carrying out a prior investigation.

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 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 the information provided by Miss H, her complaint to the Council and the Council’s responses. I sent Miss H a draft of this decision and invited her to comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council received a complaint alleging inappropriate noise from Miss H’s property. It did not investigate the complaint but instead sent a letter to Miss H informing her of the allegation made.
5. Miss H complained to the Council about receiving the letter and denied she had caused any noise nuisance. The Council responded to Miss H to advise it had spoken to the person making the complaint about the noise and Miss H’s property had in fact been identified incorrectly. The Council apologised for the impact the complaint had on Miss H and for any upset caused.
6. The Council also explained that its policy is to send out initial letters when it receives a noise complaint. This was why it wrote to Miss H after receiving a complaint alleging noise from her property. It was only after Miss H got in touch with the Council it found that her property had been identified incorrectly. The Council agreed to put an alert on Miss H’s file so any future letters about noise would only be sent to her with the prior knowledge of the enforcement manager.

Assessment

7. The Council accepted there was a mistake and Miss H’s address was not the address of the alleged noise. The Council offered an apology for this and explained why it sent the initial letter to Miss H following the complaint about noise. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome or to a different remedy for Miss H.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the previous investigation by the Council and investigation by the Ombudsman will unlikely lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman