Summary: Mr D says there were issues with the handling of initial noise reports to the Council. I have ended the investigation because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says there were issues handling his initial reports of noise nuisance in 2025 including:
• The use of ‘dear sir/ madam’ on letters sent by the Council
• The Council used cut and paste for some text in a document
• An Environmental Health Officer did not provide a contact number
• The date a letter was posted to Mr D by the Council.

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; 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
4. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr D refers to issues he had after initial contact with the Council about an alleged noise nuisance. He complained to the Council in May 2025, and the Council responded that it had received Mr D’s noise report as well as a noise allegation against him, both of those cases would be investigated. In June Mr D pursued his complaint and raised issues with some text in communications having been cut and pasted. He also referred to the Council using ‘dear sir/ madam’ on a document and a telephone number not being provided for an Environmental Health Officer. The Council responded, it apologised for the Environmental Health Officer not revising her letter to remove reference to a telephone number, she was new in post and had not been assigned a direct line at that point but was contactable by email. The Council did not find fault in the rest of the complaint.
6. I have decided to discontinue (end) the investigation. I have looked at the issues raised by Mr D in his formal complaints to the Council, none of those warrant further investigation. The Council has already explained to Mr D why cut and paste and ‘dear sir/ madam’ was used and we cannot add to that. The Council has also explained to Mr D why a telephone contact number was not provided and how letters are dated and posted out. Further consideration by the Ombudsman would not add to those explanations.
7. If Mr D is dissatisfied with the subsequent investigation of the noise issues he would need to first complain to the Council before he can bring the matter to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Decision

8. I have decided to end the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman