Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the service provided by the Council during its investigation about noise. Mrs Y says the Council is favouring her neighbour over her, because it is not taking further action against her neighbour.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y complained to the Council about noise from her neighbour. The Council explained it does not always take actions when noise is predominantly the sound of children playing. After Mrs Y reported further noise, the Council investigated this. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment in Mrs Y’s property. No recordings were made during this time. Mrs Y says the Council advised her neighbour of the exact times the recordings would take place. The Council had a duty to inform Mrs Y’s neighbour that it may use noise monitoring equipment after receiving the noise complaint. However, the Council says it did not inform Mrs Y’s neighbour of the exact times this would take place because that would defeat the purpose of the undertakings.
6. The Council offered Mrs Y another provision to record noise, including the installation of a noise app onto a phone. However, this was not taken up by Mrs Y. It also requested Mrs Y to keep diary sheets.
7. On speaking about the complaint to Mrs Y’s neighbour, the Council said it also heard noise from Mrs Y. The Council said it is likely that poor sound insulation is a factor, of which would be a private matter in terms of any works required to alleviate this.
8. The Council concluded its investigation and found no statutory noise nuisance. It could therefore not take any action against Mrs Y’s neighbour.
9. Mrs Y says the Council should report her neighbour to their landlord; however, the Council says it will not do this without evidence of a statutory noise nuisance.
10. Mrs Y says the Council is favouring her neighbours over herself. However, I am satisfied the Council properly investigated Mrs Y’s noise complaint. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.
11. Mrs Y says the Council’s actions have breached her Human Rights. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
12. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. I am satisfied that the Council has properly considered Mrs Y’s concerns and taken account of her rights in its treatment of her.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman