Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s reports of noise nuisance by a neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to take appropriate action in response to her reports of noise nuisance by a neighbour, and says officers were rude to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there is not enough evidence of fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, which included emails and complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Ms X is very unhappy about the noise she hears from a neighbouring property.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Ms X reports of noise nuisance to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Council has considered the information Ms X submitted about the noise, sent a warning letter to the neighbour, and explained why much of the noise does not amount to a statutory nuisance.
• It offered to install noise monitoring equipment in relation to the late-night drilling that Ms X highlighted.
• None of the email/complaint correspondence with officers (provided by Ms X and the Council) appears to me to be rude or unprofessional. And in any case, the Council’s apology for any distress caused is a satisfactory way to address this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has responded to her reports of noise nuisance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman