Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s lack of action in relation to his complaints of neighbour nuisance. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and it is open to Mr X to co-operate with the Council in the way it has requested.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has not taken his complaints of neighbour nuisance seriously. He says it is not prepared to interpret the nuisance he has complained about correctly and it is being too rigid and negative in its approach. He is suffering both mentally and physically because of the impact of the nuisance upon him.

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, 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 X and the Council, including its responses to his complaints. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complains about noise nuisance from his neighbour. An earlier complaint to the Ombudsman in 2019 about the same matter led to the Ombudsman recommending and the Council agreeing to “repeating recent offers to provide recording equipment… and following the results of any noise recording decide whether to serve an abatement notice”.
5. The Council offered to install recording equipment in Mr X’s home but, as with earlier offers it had made previously, he declined the offer.
6. In 2020 Mr X complained again to the Council about its handling of his complaints of noise nuisance and disturbance from his neighbour. It addressed his complaint under its complaints procedure but did not uphold it.
7. In responding to Mr X, the Council set out the steps it had taken in contacting the neighbour and in contacting the housing association landlord about the possibility of defective floorboards. It considered the information Mr X provided in his incident diaries but explained that the next step in the procedure was to install sound recording equipment in his property if it was to obtain further information to support his allegations and before any enforcement action could be considered against the neighbour. It also gave guidance about how Mr X could take his own legal action against his neighbour under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
8. Mr X has refused to allow the installation of recording equipment at his property. The Council has told him if he changes his mind, he can contact officers but that otherwise the case will remain closed as there is no further action it can take.

Assessment

9. In accordance with its standard procedures, the Council has attempted to obtain further evidence by offering to install recording equipment in Mr X’s property. To date Mr X has refused this offer and this is his decision to make. I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council in its handling of this matter or that an investigation is warranted.
10. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says that he did not decline the Council’s offer but rather said its equipment and its deployment was insufficient and too rigid in its operation. However, it is still open to Mr X to accept the offer for the installation of the equipment the Council has.
11. Mr X implies there is some form of collusion between the Council and his neighbour and between the Council and the housing association, but he has provided no evidence to support this view.
12. Mr X has no right to receive confidential third-party information and if he believes the Council is not dealing properly with his information requests, he can contact the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and it is open to Mr X to co-operate with the Council in the way it has requested.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman