Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint about anti-social behaviour and noise from the next-door property. She also complains about how the Council dealt with her complaint.
2. Miss Y says she has suffered upset, distress and inconvenience as a result of the problem and the lack of the Council’s action.

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 decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y complained to the Council about a noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. The Council investigated the noise from the flat next to Miss Y’s. The Council said the noise was domestic noise. Consequently, in December 2020, as it felt the noise would not be enforceable against, it sent advisory letters to the neighbours asking them to stop the noise disturbing Miss Y. It also sent information to Miss Y on how she could pursue the matter through the magistrates’ court if she wanted.
7. Miss Y complained in January 2021 to the Council about its decision not to take enforcement action as she felt it had not properly dealt with the noise problem. The Council initially did not respond to Miss Y’s complaint. Instead, it considered the complaint as a request for the Council to act further in the noise complaint. Consequently, it repeated the findings of its investigation and confirmed it would not be taking enforcement action against the neighbour.
8. Miss Y continued to chase the Council for a response until May 2021, when she asked it to provide her with a final response.
9. The Council responded in June 2021. It apologised for failing to respond to Miss Y’s complaint. It confirmed its position, that it would not take enforcement action against Miss Y’s neighbour, but said Miss Y could act herself, through the magistrates’ court. Miss Y then asked us to investigate.

Analysis

10. As the Council investigated Miss Y’s noise complaint and found the cause to be domestic noise from the neighbour, it decided it would not take further enforcement action against the Council. It told Miss Y it would write to the neighbour to ask them to stop the noise but would take no further enforcement action.
11. As the Council properly considered the noise and acted, using its professional judgement, to deal with the issue proportionately, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
12. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman