Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to reports Mr X made about noise nuisance. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he has been told by the Council that he is exaggerating the noise nuisance he has reported. He says he has been discriminated against because of his autism and told he is “sensitive” to noise. He also complains that a council officer responded to an email that Mr X had copied him in on.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We will not investigate decisions made by councils where they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
7. The Council decided there was insufficient evidence for the noise Mr X had reported to be classed as a statutory nuisance. This is a disappointing decision for Mr X but there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
8. Mr X says a council officer who he copied into an email to his housing association should not have responded to the email. However, as the email referred to the Council’s noise investigation, the officer responded appropriately and there is no evidence to suggest fault.
9. Mr X says he has been discriminated against because of his autism but there is no evidence to support this claim. The Council has correctly told Mr X that when assessing noise, it is the average person, and not someone with the complainant’s personal set of circumstances, that it must take into account.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint 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