Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a noise nuisance complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has not properly investigated her complaint about noise nuisance from the house next door to her home which is used for short term lets. She says the Council has ignored the noise recordings she has provided.

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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X including the Council’s responses to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council confirms it considered the recordings provided by Mrs X. However, it advised her that because these were made through an uncalibrated app on a mobile phone, they were not enough evidence to prove a statutory noise nuisance. It offered to install noise monitoring equipment in Mrs X’s home.
6. The Council also confirms it spoke to the owner of the property who confirmed they have installed a soft close mechanism on the front door and soft close pads on cabinets. They have also placed a notice in the property advising no noise after 11pm and remind guests of this requirement.
7. I understand Ms X is very unhappy about the noise she hears from the property next door.
8. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Mrs X reports of noise nuisance to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am conscious that:
• The Council considered the information Mrs X submitted about the noise and contacted the neighbour who took action to reduce the noise from closing doors.
• It offered to install noise monitoring equipment in Mrs X’s home.
10. The Council has followed the process we expect to see following receipt of a complaint about noise. Therefore its decision to close the case is not something we can criticise. There is no evidence of fault in the way it made its decision.
11. The Council has repeatedly advised Mrs X it will install noise monitoring equipment in her home. This will enable it to reconsider whether a statutory noise nuisance is occurring.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman