Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council dealt with his reports of noise nuisance from neighbours and their dogs. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council and is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council should be able to establish noise nuisance without any input from him and that it should introduce a policy to prevent people having dogs in their homes. He says noise nuisance is preventing him from sleeping and this is impacting on his health and well-being.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council about noise nuisance from neighbours, including dogs barking. In response, the Council wrote to Mr B and the neighbours the subject of the complaint. It sent Mr B diary sheets to log the noise nuisance which he completed and returned.
5. The Council reviewed the diary sheets and determined that as there might be a possible statutory nuisance it would escalate the case to the next stage of its investigation process. The Council wrote to Mr B to advise it would visit him at home in an attempt to witness the nuisance or install noise recording equipment. In the meantime, it asked him to continue completing diary sheets.
6. Mr B declined to complete further diary sheets and as he also declined to have recording equipment in his home, an officer visited three times in an attempt to witness the nuisance but was unable to do so. As the Council was unable to witness the nuisance or substantiate it with noise recording equipment it told Mr B it would be unable to take enforcement action.
7. Mr B complained to the Council about this and said it should change its policy to prevent people from keeping dogs in their homes. The Council responded by setting out the law on statutory nuisance and explaining how it had investigated his complaint. It told him his diary sheets were not enough on their own for it to take enforcement action but that it would reopen the case if he decided to co-operate further with the investigation. It also advised Mr B that it was not within the Council’s powers to prevent people keeping dogs.
8. The Council did not uphold his complaint but did advise him of his right to take his own legal action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Assessment

9. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr B’s complaints of noise nuisance. It followed its normal procedures but without his continued co-operation it was unable to take the investigation further. It has told Mr B it is willing to reopen the case should he change his mind about co-operating further.
10. The Council has no powers to introduce a policy which would prevent people from keeping dogs in their homes.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council and unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman