Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her noise complaint. The Council have agreed to a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Councils lack of response to her noise complaint about dog barking over a few years. Miss X also complains that once the Council decided the noise was a statutory nuisance its response was ineffective.

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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X made noise complaints to the Council about a dog barking. She says the Council didn’t respond to her requests until she made a formal complaint about the lack of action. The Council have accepted fault for unreasonable delay where there were several months it didn’t respond to Miss X about her noise complaint. We asked the Council to provide a symbolic remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X by each month of delay. The Council have agreed to do this within 4 weeks of this decision.
6. Miss X complains that once the Council accepted there was a statutory nuisance caused by the dog barking their response and enforcement actions were ineffective.
7. If a council decides a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice requiring the perpetrator to take steps to abate the nuisance. Here, the Council decided there was a statutory nuisance and issued an abatement notice giving an 8-week compliance period to resolve the issue. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council progressed the investigation once it decided there was a statutory nuisance.
8. Miss X complains the statutory nuisance continued after the compliance period. She says the Council took no further action when the abatement notice was breached. The Council did try to further investigate the noise complaint. It tried to arrange to revisit her property to gather evidence the abatement notice hadn’t been complied with. It was unable to do so due to Miss X moving from her property. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to stop further investigation at this point.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We have upheld Miss X’s complaint; the Council have agreed to a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman