Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Ms Y’s reports of a car alarm going off near her property. This is because there is not enough injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains the Council failed to stop a car alarm going off near her property. She says the alarm disturbed her sleep.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Ms Y and considered the documents she and the Council provided. Ms Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms Y reported a car alarm going off repeatedly at the same time, late at night in July 2020. The Council responded to ask Ms Y for further details, including the exact location of the vehicle and the vehicle’s registration. Ms Y said she did not know where the car was and could not see it, so she was unable to give a registration number. The Council contacted the manager for Ms Y’s council estate to see if they could help. The manager said without further details they were limited in what they could do. They suggested Ms Y leave a polite notice on the car, to ask the owner to ensure the alarm did not continue to go off.
6. Ms Y was unhappy with this advice. She made a complaint about the officer who had dealt with her report, saying they had failed to contact the Council’s environmental health team. She said she could not give an exact location of the vehicle because it was used during the day, but the alarm would go off at the same time each night, before it was then driven away.
7. The Council gave its first response at the end of July, which said the officer had contacted environmental health and the Council estate’s manager to try to resolve the problem, but without further information, no action could be taken.
8. Ms Y rejected the response in August. The Council then provided its final response in September, which upheld its original findings and referred Ms Y to the Ombudsman.
9. Ms Y confirmed during a telephone call in October that the car alarm has stopped going off at night and is no longer disturbing her.

Analysis

10. The problem Ms Y originally complained about, that an alarm kept going off at night, has been resolved. Consequently, as the alarm is not disturbing Ms Y, there is not enough injustice remaining to warrant an investigation into the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough injustice caused by the alleged fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman