Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her complaints of noise nuisance. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council gave her conflicting information and messages in connection with recent noise nuisance complaints she made and that it delayed in responding to her complaint at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 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 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, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained to the Council about conflicting information its Environment Health team had given her in connection with her reports of noise nuisance by neighbours and about its lack of investigation into the problem.
8. The Council responded to clarify how one-off incidents of noise can be dealt with and it set out the action it had taken in response to her recent noise reports. It confirmed its officer had considered the evidence available but decided there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance.
9. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take, and it is not our role to review the merits of it. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in how it was made.
10. The Council did delay in responding at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It acknowledged this and apologised to Ms X. We will not investigate complaint handling matters when we are not investigating the substantive issue and there is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice caused to Ms X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman