Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to deal with his complaints about its noise nuisance investigations and the actions of the environmental protection team. The Council apologised appropriately for poor communications and there is no ongoing injustice. Mr X complains late about the noise nuisance cases which happened more than 12 months ago.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint, sent in May 2021, about systemic failures in the environmental protection team. Mr X says the Council’s failings have had a serious impact on his wellbeing and health.
2. Mr X complains the Council gave him a poor service when he reported noise nuisance, from a dog barking, between 2014 and 2021.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with action a council has taken or decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. The information held includes the complaint correspondence with the Council.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
8. There is no ongoing injustice and the Council’s apologies remedied injustice caused by poor communication. The part of Mr X’s complaint which is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is the Council’s final complaint reply dated 16 August 2021. The Council has apologised for an officer failing to reply to Mr X’s email, 23 February 2021, requesting an update on his noise nuisance case. Mr X says he received the update 10 weeks later. The Council also apologised for sending Mr X further noise diary sheets in the mistaken view that he was wanting to report further noise nuisance. The Council said that it would discuss with the team how it was dealing with communications and complaints.
9. Mr X’s complaint about the handling of the noise nuisance case is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because he complains late, outside the permitted period of 12 months (see paragraphs 4 and 5):
1. The information says Mr X reported nuisance between 2014 and 2017. Mr X says the Council apologised in January 2015 for delay in dealing with his dog barking complaint.
2. Mr X reported dog barking again in 2020. He says in August/September 2020 he made 95 recordings of noise over 17 days. When the Council replied to Mr X, around April 2021, it explained that his noise app evidence did not show a noise nuisance. Mr X’s complaint of May 2021 makes clear he is not suffering noise nuisance or asking for a further investigation.
10. I will not exercise discretion to investigate the noise nuisance cases. Mr X could have complained sooner. Mr X has delayed nearly a year in complaining to us since the Council told him he could in August 2021. There is nothing to achieve. If Mr X experiences noise nuisance again he would need to report to the Council which would open a new case.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to deal with his complaints about its noise nuisance investigations and the actions of the environmental protection team. The Council apologised appropriately for poor communications and there is no ongoing injustice. Mr X complains late about the noise nuisance cases which happened more than 12 months ago.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman