Summary: We decided that we should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a noise nuisance. We found the Council’s investigation had accepted fault and agreed to remedy the complaint appropriately. As a result, we could not achieve any additional worthwhile outcome from conducting our own investigation. However, we investigated the Council’s complaint handling. We found there was fault with the way the Council presented its remedy to Mr X. We recommended the Council reviewed its practice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his complaints about a noise nuisance, and there were issues in the way it responded to his complaint about the matter.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization;
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; and/or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In Autumn 2025 Mr X made reports of a noise nuisance to the Council from a vehicle. The Council told him it could not investigate because the vehicle owner was unknown. Mr X complained in September and the Council replied around a month later. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response to the complaint and asked to escalate his concerns.
7. The Council responded to the complaint at Stage Two of its complaint process in June 2026. The Council’s letter to Mr X was detailed. In it, the Council:

• Accepted that there had been unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint;
• Agreed that when Mr X made his original noise reports these should and could have been accepted and investigated.
• Explained to Mr X how he could make future reports and agreed that if he made contact while the noise was ongoing, an officer could visit to witness the noise. It also agreed he could complete diary sheets on paper, as this suited his circumstances. The Council stated that, if appropriate, noise monitoring equipment could be installed.
• The Council also responded to various queries Mr X had raised.

8. To acknowledge the failure to investigate Mr X’s noise reports, and the delay in dealing with his complaint, the Council apologised and offered to make a payment of £500.
9. While the Council’s letter to Mr X proposed a suitable remedy to the complaint, its letter explained that the remedy offer was conditional. The Council stated, to receive the £500 payment, Mr X would need to ‘withdraw [the] complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’. The Council made clear that regardless of whether Mr X accepted the conditional compensation offer, it would still investigate the noise issue as it had set out, if he wished to make further reports in the future.
10. Mr X decided to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Our View

11. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. When we receive complaints we consider the issues raised, and the response from the organisation concerned.
12. If we find that the organisation concerned has provided a suitable response to the complaint, which remedies any impact to the person affected, we may decide that there are not sufficient grounds for us to conduct our own investigation.
13. In Mr X’s case, the Council responded fully to his complaint at Stage Two of the complaints process, accepting it was at fault. The Council also replied to other queries Mr X raised and it acknowledged that its complaint response was significantly delayed. To put things right the Council explained how Mr X could raise similar issues in future, and how these might be dealt with and it provided an appropriate apology. These points were appropriate.
14. However, the Council also offered Mr X £500 which it stated was to recognise the ongoing distress caused to Mr X by its poor service and failure to investigate the issue he raised. The Council noted Mr X had already approached the Ombudsman, and its letter stated the £500 was conditional on Mr X withdrawing his complaint to us.
15. While the Council went on to provide our details to Mr X, so that he could make a complaint to us if he wished, it made clear that the Council would not make the payment it had offered if he did. This essentially penalised Mr X for making use of the Ombudsman’s service.
16. We found this approach to be of concern, and we regard it as fault by the Council. We welcome attempts by councils to remedy complaints before they reach the Ombudsman, however, an offer of remedy by a council should be made to recognise any harm that has been caused. It follows that, having acknowledged harm was caused, it is not appropriate for a council to withdraw an offer to remedy that harm simply to avoid scrutiny by the Ombudsman. Councils should offer remedies that they consider appropriate to remedy injustice, and allow someone to escalate a complaint to us if they wish to. Members of the public should be free to bring a complaint to us without penalty.
17. In cases where we find that a council has already investigated, acknowledged fault and provided a suitable remedy we already actively acknowledge this. We will generally not launch our own investigation in these circumstances. These instances are part of our reporting on council performance that can be found on our website here.
18. In this case Mr X chose to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman rather than accept the Council’s offer at that time. We consider that the actions taken to apologise, explain how future complaints would be handled and the offer of £500 represent a suitable remedy to Mr X’s complaint. We expect the Council to honour its offer to remedy Mr X’s complaint, regardless of the fact that he has brought his complaint to us.
19. We remain of the view that we should not investigate Mr X’s complaint further, on the basis that the Council honours the full remedy it offered to Mr X to remedy his complaint and on the basis that it reviews its approach to complaints and ensures it ceases its practice of offering conditional remedies as it has done in Mr X’s case.

Back to top

Action

20. Within four weeks of our final decision:
21. The Council should make, unconditionally, the payment of £500 that it offered Mr X to remedy the distress caused by its poor handling of Mr X’s noise reports and delay in its complaint handling.
22. The Council should review and update its complaint handling guidance to make it clear that it is not acceptable to make conditional offers to remedy complaints on basis that they are not escalated to the Ombudsman. The Council should send a briefing note to all relevant complaint handling staff to ensure this is clearly understood.

Back to top

Decision

23. We did not investigate the original issues of Mr X’s complaint. However, we found there was fault in the Council’s complaint handling that needed to be addressed by a service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman