Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her noise nuisance complaints. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council takes no account of her complaints about neighbour noise nuisance from previous years and she has to start the process from the beginning each year. She says its app recording system does not work properly and asks how it is her neighbours know to stop playing loud music when officers undertake site visits and install noise recording equipment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s Environmental Protection and Anti-Social Behaviour teams have worked together to investigate Ms X’s noise nuisance complaints. Sound recording equipment has been installed, app recordings have been considered and site visits made at times suggested by Ms X. However, to date, the Council has decided there is insufficient evidence for it to take further action. This is disappointing for Ms X but it is not evidence of fault by the Council. It is not our role to question decisions a council has made if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
9. The Council has explained to Ms X why it cannot keep open her complaint and the position with its sound recording app. If it were to take enforcement action in the future, it would have to be based on current and not past events. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 applies to events from earlier years as it would have been open to Ms X to have complained sooner.
10. In responding to my draft decision, Ms X says she has to raise a new complaint about her neighbours every year and the only thing the Council has done is send out a letter to the neighbours asking for consideration. However, as detailed above, this is not all the Council has done but what it has yet to obtain is sufficient evidence to take further action. The Council has already adequately addressed Ms X’s concern about why it has to start a new investigation each year and her concern that her neighbours are being tipped off. It has also explained in some detail (Element 2 of its Stage 2 response) about how the noise recording app works and why Ms X could see a “pending review” message when the submission had already been listened to.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman