Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of communication concerning noise nuisance received from Mr X and other residents. This is because Mr X has not suffered injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation in connection with the communication and because an investigation into the Council’s handling of reports of noise nuisance is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to communication sent to it by him and other residents concerning a noise nuisance. He also complains the Council has taken no further action in relation to the nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. For a number of years Mr X has been complaining to the Council about a noise nuisance he can hear. The Council has investigated matters in the past and found no statutory nuisance.
6. In 2020 the Council received communication from Mr X and a letter signed by other residents in connection with the noise nuisance. The Council considered a complaint from Mr X about its handling of this communication. It partly upheld the complaint because it had failed to respond to all the signatories. However, it concluded that Mr X had not suffered injustice himself. This is a view I share and so we will not investigate the matter.
7. In response to my enquiry, the Council has confirmed it continues to advise Mr X that he has yet to provide any evidence there is a statutory noise nuisance and so its investigation into the matter remains closed. This remains its position after having received and assessed information from the small number of residents who more recently responded to its request for the submission of noise diary sheets. The Council says it has told Mr X that his next course of action is to seek legal advice and pursue the matter through the court.
8. To date, Mr X has not provided evidence of, and the Council has not witnessed, a statutory noise nuisance and so it has advised it will not investigate again. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to lead to a different outcome and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X has not suffered injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation in connection with the communication and because an investigation into the Council’s handling of reports of noise nuisance is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman