Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a noise complaint. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council mishandled a noise complaint by failing to inform him properly, escalating the case without following procedure, and relying on music recordings instead of investigating dog barking. He says the music was lawful protest and the Council acted with bias causing him and his wife distress. He wants an apology, an investigation into the officer, and all warnings removed from the record.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a complaint about dog barking from Mr X’s property. It sent a standard advice letter, opened a noise investigation, and asked the complainant to complete diary sheets and use the noise app to record evidence.
7. The Council then installed noise monitoring equipment to gather evidence of the noise coming from Mr X’s property. This forms part of its standard procedure for investigating noise complaints.
8. After considering the evidence, the Council determined the noise level required further action. It issued a Community Protection Warning (CPW), an informal measure designed to encourage early behaviour change.
9. Mr X complained, the Council had unjustifiably served an abatement notice, failed to follow due process, and acted with officer bias.
10. The Council explained it had issued a CPW, not an abatement notice, and that it had followed proper procedures. It said it found no evidence of officer bias and had gathered evidence through diary sheets and noise monitoring equipment, which captured music affecting a neighbouring property. It considered both barking and music as part of the same investigation and deemed the CPW as a reasonable response.
11. Mr X said the music was part of a political protest and therefore exempt from noise controls. The Council said it had listened to the recordings and found no evidence indicating a political motive.
12. I recognise that Mr X is unhappy the Council chose to issue a CPW without speaking to him first. However, there was no requirement to do so. The Council’s policy on antisocial behaviour allows it to serve a CPW without prior discussion if it considers it necessary in the circumstances. This is a decision it was entitled to make.
13. 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.
14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is no evidence to suggest an investigation would find any fault in how the Council carried out its investigation or reached the decision to issue the CPW.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman