Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour, and its handling of his application for rehousing on medical grounds. Mr X also complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments as part of its consideration of his case. He says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress, anxiety and uncertainty, and negatively impacted his mental health. I have ended our investigation because there is a body better placed to consider this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour, and its handling of his application for rehousing on medical grounds. Mr X also complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments as part of its consideration of his case. He says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress, anxiety and uncertainty, and negatively impacted his mental health. He would like the Council to apologise, carry out a new medical priority housing assessment and to provide training to its officers in the anti-social behaviour team.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
8. Mr X has diagnoses of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and severe mental illness.
9. Mr X submitted numerous noise complaints to the Council over a period of several years, regarding his neighbour. Mr X says the noise nuisance caused him sensory overload, panic attacks and significant emotional and psychological trauma.
10. Mr X submitted an application for rehousing as a medical priority to the Council. He said the noise nuisance from his neighbour meant he was living in unsuitable accommodation and the noise nuisance was worsening his condition.
11. Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action following his reports of noise nuisance. He also complained about the Council’s handling of his rehousing application; he says the Council rejected the application because it considered noise is not a medical issue. Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments and did not acknowledge how noise pollution can affect him as an autistic person with severe mental health conditions.
12. Mr X filed a court claim against the Council in 2025 regarding disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Mr X says his underlying claim concerns long-term failures by the Council to safeguard him from the prolonged harm he has encountered over the past seven years, including a failure to provide reasonable adjustments and medical housing priority.
13. Mr X filed an application with the court to request an extension for his claim. He said the issues in his case relate directly to severe ongoing environmental housing-related harm.
14. The matter is ongoing with a court hearing scheduled for May 2026.

Analysis

15. Mr X has filed a claim at court against the Council and has a scheduled hearing date. The underlying matters of the claim as explained by Mr X are the same as the underlying matters of his complaint to the Council. The court is a body better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Decision

16. I have ended our investigation of the complaint because there is a body better placed to consider it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman