Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his noise nuisance complaints of a neighbour’s barking dog. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to his noise nuisance complaints of a neighbour’s barking dog. He says his mental health has been affected by the problem and that the Council should issue his neighbour with an abatement notice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘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 believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council about noise nuisance caused by the barking of his neighbour’s dog when it was in the garden.
5. In accordance with normal procedures, the Council wrote to the dog owner and sent Mr X diary sheets to fill in and return to the case officer.
6. Based on the information Mr X provided in the diary sheets, the Council decided that due to the limited amount of time he had stated the dog was barking, the entries in the noise diary would not constitute a statutory noise nuisance.
7. As Mr X disagreed with this assessment, officers then visited outside his property to see if they could hear the dog barking, but they did not hear barking at the times of their visits.
8. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about how his case had been dealt with. The Council did not uphold it because it found it had properly followed its procedures and it had not witnessed dog barking against which it could take any action.
9. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr X made a further complaint to the Council and asked why the numerous videos and audio files he had made of the dog barking could not be viewed and used by officers to make a case for enforcement action. He also contacted our office with his complaint.
10. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at the second stage of its complaints procedure. It said that because such recordings were not independent evidence, it did not accept them from complainants in noise cases. It went on to explain that following a later report from Mr X about the dog barking, an officer had visited again and witnessed the barking. The officer then spoke to the owner and advised them that they needed to put in place provisions to stop this happening. The Council sent the owner a further warning letter and advised that if the barking continued it would serve an Abatement Notice.

Assessment

11. Mr X complained to us in between the Council’s consideration of his complaint. It investigated matters further which led to an officer witnessing the dog barking and contacting the owner with their findings and a warning that an Abatement Notice would be issued if the problem continued.
12. As the Council has taken this action, and an investigation by our office would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.
13. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says as the Council accepts personal recordings in other departments, there is no reason why it could not have done so for his case. However, the Council has already explained its position about recordings for noise nuisance complaints. This is a decision for the Council to take and its merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman. Mr X has quoted from s79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which refers to the impact of a nuisance on an individual but he has not gone on to s80 which states that it is “Where a local authority is satisfied (ie not the complainant) that a statutory nuisance exists… the local authority shall serve a notice”. Moreover, the Council has already said it will serve a notice if the problem is not resolved.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman