Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to concerns Mr X raised about an event held in a park whose noise affected elderly residents in a nearby home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation and any dissatisfaction Mr X may have with the Council’s response to his FOI request is best directed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to concerns he raised about noise from an event held in a park close to his home for elderly residents.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Unhappy with the noise generated by an event held in a park close to the residential home in which he lives, Mr X complained to the Council and sought information about noise complaints for events held at the park under the FOI legislation.
7. The Council responded to his FOI request but did not provide the results of sound monitoring which had been undertaken by a specialist company. We will not investigate this issue because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the body best placed to consider it.
8. With regard to Mr X’s concerns about the holding of the event and the noise generated by it, the Council addressed the specific points he raised and said that it had not been approached by the residents at the home who Mr X had referred to in his complaint. It also advised that any resident experiencing noise nuisance from events at the park should contact the Council and raise their concerns. It referred Mr X to the managers of the home in which he lives if they had not passed on information about events taking place in the park.
9. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We are funded by the public purse and have an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner. While Mr X may not be satisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation and any dissatisfaction Mr X may have with the Council’s response to his FOI request is best directed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman