Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not turning off the noise from a pedestrian crossing near her property, or how it dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation. There is not enough significant injustice to Mrs X stemming from Council actions or inactions to justify us investigating. The law allows Mrs X to take the matter to court, a route it would be reasonable for her to use. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the outcome she wants from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a house near a pedestrian crossing. She complains the Council:
1. has refused to turn off the pedestrian crossing’s beeping noise;
2. delayed when responding to her complaint.
2. Mrs X says the crossing is next to her property’s windows and the noise disturbs her and her family’s enjoyment of their house. She wants the Council to switch off the crossing’s noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council, relevant online images and information, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
8. In reply to Mrs X’s concerns, the Council explained the noise is to help people, particularly partially sighted and blind people, to safely cross the road. The Council visited the site and determined the equipment complies with the relevant national standards. The Council’s officer initially reduced the beep’s volume. When Mrs X continued to raise her concerns, an officer returned and put the sound on the lowest possible volume. They also set the beep so it was turned off entirely overnight, between 10pm and 7.30am.
9. The Council considers it has taken all possible steps to reduce the noise and its impact while complying with its wider duty to make the crossing accessible to all users. It followed its process to assess the crossing equipment in response to Mrs X’s concerns. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in the decision‑making process officers used here to justify us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the outcome of that process, the Council’s decision not to take further action. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Even if there was fault by the Council here we will not investigate. Mrs X’s claimed injustice is from the impacts of the crossing’s noise on her and her family. Information from the internet shows Mrs X bought her property over ten years ago. Online images of the property from before she bought it show the same kind of pedestrian crossing was already there and had been for several years. It was Mrs X’s decision to buy a property with a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing nearby which brought her into contact with the impacts she now complains about. There is not enough significant injustice to Mrs X caused by Council actions or inactions here to justify us investigating.
11. We understand Mrs X’s considers the Council’s crossing amounts to a statutory noise nuisance. We are not noise nuisance professionals so could not make that finding. Only a court would have or be able to gather the necessary expertise to rule on such a dispute. If Mrs X considers her view on the noise is correct, that is a claim she would need to put before the courts to get a ruling. Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives people a process to take noise matters to the magistrates’ court. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to pursue that route because she may only get a finding on the matter in court. She may wish to get independent legal advice before taking that option.
12. Mrs X complains about how the Council handled her complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
13. We note the result Mrs X wants from her complaint is for the Council to turn off the crossing’s noise. She also mentions the Council changing the crossing to different silent design. We cannot order a council to silence or replace a crossing. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation; and
• there is not enough significant injustice stemming from the Council’s actions or inactions to justify us investigating; and
• it would be reasonable for her to take any claim of a statutory noise nuisance to the magistrates’ court; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman