Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints of noise nuisance from dog kennels near his home. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can usefully add to the investigation already carried out by the Council in response to the 2019 complaint and it is open to him to co-operate with the Council with any new investigation into the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council did not deal with his complaint about dog barking from kennels close to his home in accordance with the law; did not communicate clearly with him and did not resolve his problem before closing the case. The dog barking has caused great stress, and this has been added to by the Council’s handling of the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2019 Mr X complained to the Council about the service he had received in the investigation of his noise nuisance complaints of barking dogs at kennels close to his home.
6. The Council responded by explaining the investigating officer had installed noise recording equipment, considered the log sheets provided by Mr X, made visits to the site to witness the barking and engaged with the owner of the kennels. Having done this and assessed the case, it was her view the noise was not a statutory nuisance requiring enforcement action. The Council advised this view had been confirmed by a second officer who had also visited the area on a number of occasions. The Council noted that following the officer’s intervention and a change of practice at the kennels, the dog barking reduced and that this had been confirmed by Mr X’s partner. The Council said the officer had not closed the case and had written to the kennels to request further improvements to reduce barking.
7. Eight months later Mr X wrote to the Council to say he did not think it had properly followed the law as set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 because the dog barking was still disturbing him. He asked that his case, if closed, be reopened and investigated by a different officer.
8. The Council treated this contact as a Stage 2 complaint and responded in July 2020 to explain its 2019 decision had been based on a range of factors, as set out in its earlier letter, and that it had taken the steps it had considered reasonably practical to investigate his complaint. It said his 2019 complaint had been closed but that it would reopen a new complaint to be investigated by a new officer who would require new information from Mr X in the form of current log sheets which it enclosed with its response.
9. Mr X did not return the logs. In December he emailed the Council to say he had found the July response unacceptable as it remained the fact that he was disturbed by the noise and as the Council had provided no evidence to show it had taken any action to reduce it he would complain to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

10. Under the 1990 Act councils are required to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate complaints of noise nuisance. That the Council did not find a statutory nuisance in Mr X’s case is not evidence of fault. It is not our role to review the merits of decisions taken by officers exercising their professional judgement even though complainants may strongly disagree with them.
11. While I consider it would have been helpful if the Council had communicated with Mr X to explain what type of improvements it had sought from the kennels and to have told him when it had closed his case, I do not consider an investigation into these past events will achieve any useful outcome now. If Mr X wants the Council to open a new complaint, he can return the log sheets and it can consider the current situation. The Council has previously advised Mr X that it is also open to him to take his own legal action against the kennels through the Magistrates Court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can usefully add to the investigation already carried out by the Council in response to Mr X’s 2019 complaint and it is open to him to co-operate with the Council with any new investigation into the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman