Forest of Dean District Council (20 012 622)

Category : Environment and regulation > Noise

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 30 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions as part of an ongoing dispute with his neighbour about noise nuisance. We have discontinued our investigation into his complaint because we do not have jurisdiction over the substantive matter because Mr X and his neighbour are both housing association tenants.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to review recordings he had made of neighbour noise nuisance.
  2. He says the distress caused by his neighbour’s actions has been significant. It has affected the health and well-being of him and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Mr X and considered the documents he provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X is a housing association tenant. He complained to his landlord about noise nuisance from his adjoining neighbour, Mrs D. He says this constitutes harassment and has affected his health and that of his family.
  2. As part of its investigation, the landlord used noise recording equipment loaned by the Council. Mr X says the equipment should have recorded many incidents of noise nuisance.
  3. The Council reviewed the recordings and advised that the results were inconclusive. It said a home visit would be required to witness the noise first hand but this would not be possible because of Covid-19 restrictions.
  4. In the meantime, Mr X and Mrs D agreed to mediation. Mr X says this has not been successful and wants the Council to act to stop the ongoing noise problem.

Analysis

  1. Mr X and Mrs D both are tenants of the same social landlord. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the landlord to resolve complaints about noise nuisance. If the landlord is unable to do so, the Housing Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In this case, the Council’s involvement was limited to allowing use of its noise monitoring equipment, not investigation of the noise nuisance itself. I am satisfied Mr X’s primary complaint is about the actions of his landlord, not the Council.
  3. For this reason, I have discontinued this investigation and advised Mr X to contact the Housing Ombudsman if he wants to pursue his complaint about noise nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have discontinued this investigation because the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the substantive complaint about noise. Mr X should make his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman instead.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings