Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Noise Action Plan. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions, and Mr Y has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that the Council has not examined Important Areas (IA) as identified in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA) 2019 Noise Action Plan.
2. He says he is directly affected by road noise. Mr Y says the Council should consider mitigation measures such as speed management and road resurfacing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y says the Council has failed to adhere to its statutory duties in response to DEFRA’s Noise Action Plan. He says the Council should consider and implement mitigation measures.
8. The Noise Action Plan explains that the Council is responsible for examining Important Areas and proposing actions, unless it is satisfied no further action needs to be taken.
9. The Council has considered Important Areas (IA) identified within the Noise Action Plan. It has explained to Mr Y that no further action is currently needed.
10. The Council says the road near Mr Y’s home does not currently meet the criteria for requiring resurfacing or speed management measures. I understand Mr Y may disagree, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement. As the Council properly considered the matter, it is unlikely I would find fault.
11. I also do not consider Mr Y has suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault. He does not live directly on the road he has complained about and any impact from road noise will be limited.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because:

• We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions; and
• Mr Y has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman