Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s correspondence with him about a dog noise complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by this office could add to the responses already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council delayed in responding to his contact after it wrote to tell him it had received a complaint about dog noise. He also complains the Council failed to carry out adequate checks to ensure the person had reported noise at the correct address.

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 effect 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 an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council wrote to Mr X to say it had received a complaint about dog noise at his address.
7. Mr X contacted the Council on three occasions about this but did not hear back from the Council until six weeks later. The Council then told Mr X the person who made the complaint had made a mistake and reported Mr X’s address in error.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about its delay in replying to him. He also complained it had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the complainant had reported the correct address. Mr X says this caused him distress and inconvenience.
9. In response to the complaint, the Council acknowledged its delay in responding to Mr X. It apologised for this and for the inconvenience it caused Mr X. It said this had been caused by staff absence and high workload at the time. It said it asks people to ensure they provide the correct details when reporting an issue, but sometimes complainants make mistakes. It acted on the initial information provided. It explained the letter did not accuse him of causing a nuisance. It was sent to inform him a complaint had been received. It would not have escalated the matter without evidence and without being satisfied that the details provided were correct.
10. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response it is unlikely an investigation by this office could add to the responses the Council has provided via its previous investigation. The Council asks those reporting a nuisance to ensure the information provided is correct. This is proportionate at this initial stage. It has explained that further checks would be made before the matter could progress. The Council has apologised for the delay in replying to Mr X’s contact and for any inconvenience this caused. It is unlikely a further investigation by this office would add to this as the Council has taken suitable action.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by this office could add to the responses and explanation already provided by the Council via its previous investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman