Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance by his neighbour. 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 handling of his reports of noise nuisance by his neighbour and says it berated him because of the number and short length of the sound recordings he made following the Council’s installation of noise monitoring equipment in his property.

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 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. (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, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Following Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance by his neighbour, the Council installed noise monitoring equipment in his property. Because of the short nature of the noise he hears frequently, Mr X made a large number of short recordings which the Council said was contrary to the advice he had been given at the time of the installation.
7. The Council reviewed the information obtained from the recordings but decided there was insufficient evidence to constitute a statutory nuisance. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about its handling of his case and found no issues with the written and verbal advice he had been given about the operation of the equipment at the time of installation.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may be disappointed with the decisions taken by the Council, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected them.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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