Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a noise nuisance investigation because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has wrongly issued letters to him and his partner for anti-social behaviour after it received noise nuisance complaints from his neighbour who has continuously harassed him for several years.
2. Mr Y says this has caused significant upset and worry and feels the Council’s actions are unfair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. After several complaints from his neighbours, who Mr Y says have harassed him and his partner repeatedly over several years, the Council investigated a potential noise nuisance allegedly coming from Mr Y’s property. Its officers carried out a site visit, but at no point were able to witness a statutory noise nuisance.
7. However, the Council wrote to Mr Y and to his partner, to inform them of the noise complaints and issued a Community Protection Warning, which is an informal way of asking any behaviour considered as problematic to be stopped without formal action. This was because while the noise would not be considered a statutory nuisance, it was considered to meet the test that on a balance of probabilities the playing of music in the manner which would be considered persistent, unreasonable and detrimental to those living in the area.
8. Mr Y says receiving this letter made him feel harassed and upset, as well as causing him worry. He complained to the Council, who explained that it was acting as part of its statutory duty to investigate noise complaints and it had issued the letters to Mr Y and his partner as part of its role to resolve the complaint about the noise coming from Mr Y’s property. It also explained the test for issuing this type of warning was lower than that for noise, being based on a balance of probabilities, rather than beyond any reasonable doubt. Mr Y then approached us.
9. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case, the Council was acting in accordance with its duty, set out in law, to investigate a complaint about a noise nuisance. While the complaint itself may or may not have been justified, the Council had to investigate.
10. While the Council was investigating the noise nuisance complaint, it considered whether it was able to witness a statutory nuisance. While the Council did not find there was a statutory nuisance, in its professional judgment, the playing of music which met the lower threshold for a Community Protection Warning. It therefore acted to try to resolve the complaint, by issuing the warning. This is in line with its policy. Mr Y may not agree with this action, but as it was based on the professional judgment of the officer and the evidence taken during the site visit and is in accordance with the Council’s process, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman