Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a noise nuisance investigation. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation of his complaint about noise from a neighbouring flat which he says affects his sleep and that of his tenants in another flat.

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. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the occupants of a flat below the one which he rents to tenants. He said that they were turning on their television early in the morning at high volume causing disturbance to other residents.
7. The Council could not initially investigate due to social distancing restrictions in the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. When its Officers were able to attend they were unable to hear noise nuisance from a television but commented in the report that footsteps could be heard from the flat above which Mr X owns.
8. Mr X disputes the possibility of this and believes that the Council’s investigation was flawed. He complained about the decision and asked the Council to remove the comments from its record. The Council has refused to do so as it considers the report is an important basis of the case.
9. The Council advised Mr X that although it did not consider there was a statutory nuisance present, he had an alternative remedy by way of a private action under s.82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This uses a different level of evidence to the method available to the Council. Mr X says he is pursuing this remedy.
10. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but this does not mean that the process was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about a noise nuisance investigation. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman