Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of noise complaints and the issue of an abatement notice to Miss X which she says was unjustified. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council sending her warning notices and an abatement notice about noise nuisance which she says she did not create. The Council subsequently withdrew the notice but she wants an apology and action taken against her neighbours whom she says have reported her as part of harassment since she moved into the accommodation. She also says she wants to be moved to different accommodation.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says her neighbour made complaints about her using a washing machine late at night which resulted in the Council sending her warning letters and then an abatement notice under s. 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. She says the noise was later established as noise from her children moving on a metal bed frame and she wanted the Council to apologise for the mistake. She also believed the officers in Environmental Services treated her case in a biassed manor.
6. The Council had a duty to investigate the noise complaint under the requirements of the legislation. The noise was identified as coming from her accommodation and the Council had received several complaints from neighbours. Once the warnings were issued and the noise continued the Council had to serve a notice as it considered this to be a statutory nuisance.
7. The housing landlord authority subsequently submitted video evidence that the noise was being caused by a child who has disabilities and was not a washing machine operated by Miss X. When the Council was informed about this it withdrew the notice. There is no evidence that the Council’s actions caused any significant injustice to Miss X and it had a duty to take the action under the legislation.
8. Although Miss X believes the Council took action without having regard to her children’s disabilities the complaints it received concerned the operation of an appliance by her as an adult occupant, not the children.
9. Miss X says the Council has failed to take action over her neighbours behaviour but it is clear that it has involved a multi-agency panel since she complained and that she subsequently moved to another property. This was not related to the noise nuisance complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of noise complaints and the issue of an abatement notice to Miss X which she says was unjustified. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman