Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s noise nuisance complaints concerning bottle banks near her property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her complaints of noise nuisance from the use and emptying of bottle banks in a car park near her property. She says she does not believe it has been honest with her, that it failed to respond to her and that she has doubts about the adequacy of its sound monitoring equipment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its responses to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about noise nuisance from the use and emptying of bottle banks in a car park close to her home.
7. The Council investigated to see if the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance and considered sound recordings made from sound monitoring equipment. It decided the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance and so did not warrant removing the bottle bins from the area. It took action to mitigate the noise impact on Ms X by moving the bins away to the furthest distance from her property and by installing new bins with fitted sound insulation.
8. While Ms X may be disappointed with the outcome of the Council’s investigation, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question a council’s decisions if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council is satisfied all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate the noise and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
9. There was delay by the Council in responding to Ms X’s complaint, and it has acknowledged some other aspects of service failure, but we will not investigate these matters when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman