Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not enforcing against noise from a nearby football pitch and how it investigated the matter. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a site with a fenced football pitch. He complains the Council:
1. has refused to take enforcement action on his reports of noise from balls hitting the fences;
2. did not properly investigate the matter.

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 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 from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are 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 has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
6. Officers received and considered diary sheets from Mr X which set out the times, frequency and types of noise incidents from the site. Officers recognised the noise would cause Mr X some frustration, but they considered the evidence showed the noise incidents were consistent with the expected use of a sports pitch. They determined they could not take enforcement action against a site being used in a way which did not involve unreasonable activities. Officers recognised use of the site may involve some louder noises, but explained they had to consider this in the wider context of the pitch’s use and whether they could be part of the site’s expected use. They took the professional judgement that no further investigation such as a site visit was needed because an officer witnessing the noise would not have led to a different decision. They concluded they did not have grounds to take any enforcement action.
7. In making their decision not to enforce, the Council’s officers collected relevant information and followed their investigative process. They were entitled to make their enforcement decision, and the decision on how they investigated the noise. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagreed with the officers’ decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process and decision on the matters complained of to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman