Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his statutory noise complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Did not follow the correct procedure during its investigation of his noise complaint to decide whether the noise reached the statutory nuisance level.
• Failed to use available enforcement powers to stop the noise.
• Failed to make reasonable adjustments during the investigation.
• Failed in its safeguarding duty.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failings have caused significant physical and emotional harm to him and his family. He says the situation has also had a great financial and emotional impact on them, causing considerable distress and hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

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. Mr X complained the Council did not follow the correct procedures when investigating his noise complaint. He said these failings meant it did not class the noise as a statutory noise and failed to enforce action on the alleged perpetrator.
7. The Council said it followed the correct procedures. It assessed Mr X’s sound recordings, noise diary, and recordings from equipment installed in his home, but found the evidence did not meet the threshold for a statutory nuisance. It informed Mr X and offered further recording equipment to gather the evidence needed to establish a statutory nuisance and take enforcement action. Mr X declined the offer.
8. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the council in how it progressed its investigation into his noise complaint.
9. Mr X states he refused the offer of use of further recording equipment, as the Council had told the alleged perpetrator when it was used the first time. Mr X said this meant the data collected was not reliable evidence or a true reflection of the noise over time.
10. While the Council does not have a duty to tell the alleged perpetrator the exact time or placement of noise monitoring equipment. UK surveillance and data protection laws, mean they must tell the alleged perpetrator they are under investigation.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its decision to tell the alleged perpetrator about the recording equipment, as it was part of the process it must follow.
12. Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments during its investigation to take account of his child’s medical conditions. He says the Council should not have assessed whether the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance based on its impact on an average person but should instead have considered his child’s individual needs and sensitivities.
13. The Council explained the threshold for assessing statutory nuisances are set in law, and it does not have the authority to change the standard to which it measures it against. It explained that while it had a duty to make reasonable adjustments, it can only do so if they have the power to.
14. I am satisfied the Council explained why it had to assess whether the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance in this way and why it could not make the reasonable adjustments Mr X requested. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s approach to warrant further investigation.
15. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns he raised. Mr X has made a separate complaint to us about these matters, which will consider his safeguarding concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman