Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance from neighbours. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s inadequate response to his reports of noise nuisance by neighbours from dog barking, banging and loud music.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about noise nuisance from his neighbours.
7. In response to his concerns the Council installed noise monitoring equipment on three separate occasions. On one of these occasions the Council recorded dog barking which led to its issuing the neighbours with a Noise Abatement Notice. With regard to Mr X’s reports of loud music and banging, the Council told him that this had not been witnessed at a level against which it could take action. It advised him of how to contact the Council to enable monitoring visits to take place but noted that emails to other addresses and after the event would not enable it to take action. It also provided Mr X with details if wanted to take his own action through the Magistrates Court.
8. While Mr X may not be satisfied with the outcome of his complaint to the Council, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants do not agree. We cannot question decisions councils make if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns and investigated and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected its decisions.
9. While the Council had to reissue the Abatement Notice because the first one contained an error, this did not cause injustice to Mr X and does not warrant investigation.
10. If Mr X is concerned about dog welfare, it is open to him to contact the RSPCA himself.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman