Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainant’s complaint of noise nuisance. This is because our involvement at this point in time would not lead to a significantly different outcome for her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaint of noise 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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Miss B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss B complained that the Council failed to investigate her noise complaint and to reply within 10 working days of her first report of noise nuisance. She said the Council had aimed to discourage her from reporting and refused to accept the first set of noise incidents. She told us this meant three separate occurrences of noise nuisance were not recorded which led to more noise nuisance. Miss B told us the Council tried to put her off from further reports before receipt of her noise logs, it failed to inform her of its complete procedure for reporting noise nuisance, failed to keep her informed and failed to reply to her complaints. She said the Council’s information did not tell her about the process of installing noise equipment and that the installation would be in her home.
8. There is no fixed point at which noise becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on professional environmental health officers to gather and assess evidence of noise and decide if a statutory nuisance exists. To do this, officers may, for example, ask the person complaining of nuisance to complete and return noise log sheets detailing the noise. Officers may also set up recording equipment in the complainant’s home. They must ensure the evidence they collect is robust enough to withstand any challenge that may be made. So any noise monitoring equipment must be installed and calibrated correctly.
9. Miss B told us she is classed as a vulnerable tenant. She told the Council she did not want two named council officers to install noise monitoring equipment in her home and has explained this was because of their previous behaviour. Miss B said the Council should not penalise her for this. The Council explained to Miss B the reasons why it wanted the two officers to install the equipment. It said if she did not agree, it would not be able to gather sufficient evidence and would be unable to assist her further.
10. In this case the Council has followed standard procedures for investigating noise nuisance complaints. It is for the Council’s officers to determine whether noise is a statutory nuisance. In this case the Council has said it needs to install noise monitoring equipment in Miss B’s home in order to get the proof it would need to take formal action. That was a judgement for the Council to make so our further involvement at this point in time would not change the outcome for Miss B in any significant way.
11. The Council told Miss B in May 2021 that its offer to install monitoring equipment in her home remained.
12. We would not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s complaint process when we are not investigating the substantive issue leading to her complaint. This is our normal practice.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because our involvement at this point in time would not lead to a significantly different outcome for her.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman