Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a noise complaint and its report to a review panel. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s noise monitoring evidence given to an anti-social behaviour review panel in relation to his complaint about neighbours. He says the methodology was poor and generalised in considering his complaint.

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
• 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council failed to properly assess noise from his neighbours which it presented as a report to an anti-social behaviour case review involving his neighbours and co-ordinated by the Police, he says the Council failed to take account of his situation and underplayed the effect of the noise from the neighbours on his enjoyment of his home. Mr X made a similar complaint to us in 2024. We did not find fault but the Council agreed to carry out further, more extensive monitoring of the noise.
6. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on councils to investigate reports of nuisance and to take reasonable steps to investigate any complaints of statutory nuisance that it receives. The task of detecting statutory nuisances is usually delegated to Environmental Health Officers, who are often made aware of statutory nuisances by complaints from residents.
7. The Council carried out a reasonable monitoring of the noise and although this was standard procedure Mr X believes his case should have been given special consideration. For something to be a statutory nuisance it must be considered to be unreasonable to the “average person” and something that is more than an annoyance. If no statutory nuisance is found then the Council cannot investigate further.
8. The report concluded that the noise was from domestic activity. Voices, banging doors, footsteps and use of household equipment are not normally sufficient to be a nuisance. If it was the Council would have to serve an abatement notice and be able defend this against appeal at the magistrates court.
9. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate complaint about the Council’s assessment of a noise compalint and its report to a review panel. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman