Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a reported statutory nuisance as there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not investigate his complaints of statutory nuisance from noise and light properly. He also complains the Council was poor in its communication including failures to make reasonable adjustments and poor complaint handling.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council visited Mr X four times to witness a reported light disturbance and then reached a view this did not amount to a statutory nuisance. I note:
• It was up to the Council whether to accept evidence Mr X gathered himself or whether to seek more evidence from monitoring equipment before reaching a decision. That it chose not to do so is not evidence of fault.
• Action taken by the police under different legal powers does not have a bearing on the Council’s judgement on whether a disturbance amounts to a statutory nuisance.
• That one officer was unsure before another officer visit had taken place and the Council confirmed there was no nuisance, does not amount to an inconsistency in decision making.
• The Council gave written reasons for its judgement that the light does not amount to a statutory nuisance in response to Mr X’s complaint.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making on Mr X’s reports of light nuisance to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X appears to have reported noise nuisance on one occasion only. I have not seen the Council followed up on this report. However, as Mr X made no further reports of noise I consider any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council has since told Mr X to report any further issues.
9. Any injustice arising from any delay in the Council’s investigation is not significant enough to justify an investigation, given the Council did not find a statutory nuisance from light and there were no further reports of noise.
10. I note the Council has no legal duty to offer an out of hours reporting service. I cannot say any missed calls from Mr X to this service or, Mr X’s reluctance to report for a period when he thought his case was closed, caused significant injustice given no statutory nuisance was ultimately found.
11. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s communications or complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues. This is because any remaining injustice is not significant enough.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman