The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a complaint about noise nuisance. This is because some of the issues raised are for other agencies and others are subject to legal proceedings. There is not enough evidence of fault for us to investigate the remaining matters.
The complaint
Mr X said that, when he reported noise nuisance from his neighbours, the Council refused to put recording equipment in his property. He complained that when the same neighbours reported noise from his property, it installed recording equipment immediately. The Council has issued noise abatement notices against Mr X, but he said the party wall is defective and amplifies noise.
Mr X requested a multi-agency meeting. One was held, but without his knowledge, and he said the meeting concentrated on the needs of his neighbours rather than himself.
Mr X says this has caused him stress and anxiety and reactivated a historical medical condition. He said the Council’s actions did not take account of his medical condition, and therefore the Council has not had due regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).
Mr X wants the Council to apologise to him and provide financial compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6) The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916) We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended) We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Matters for other agencies Mr X complained the Council: refused to share a surveyor’s report with him and lied about its contents; and has not provided him a transcript of a meeting held in February 2024.
We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. Such complaints fall within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman service. It is open to Mr X to complain to the Housing Ombudsman about the surveyor’s report as that was commissioned by the Housing Association. We have focused only on the involvement of the Council’s Environmental Health team.
Mr X’s complaint about the meeting transcript has not completed the Council’s complaints procedure. It is, therefore, premature for Mr X to bring that matter to us as we must give councils the opportunity to investigate and respond before we can consider the matter. In any event, if the Council declines to share the meeting transcript with Mr X, the Information Commissioner's Office would be better placed to deal with that complaint.
Matters for court Mr X complained about the action the Council has taken against him. Abatement notices bring with them a right of appeal via the magistrates’ court. Mr X has used this right of appeal and these parts of his complaint are outside of our scope. We do not have discretion to consider these matters.
We also will not consider the Council’s actions in relation to the court proceedings. This includes Mr X’s complaint the Council has not shared its evidence against him, such as sound recordings, with him.
We will not consider Mr X’s concern that his neighbour’s case was treated favourably in comparison to his. This is because we cannot consider how the neighbour’s reports against Mr X were handled, for the above reasons.
Matters we could investigate Mr X says the Council: appointed the same officer to consider both his and his neighbour’s reports; refused to install noise monitoring equipment; and failed to have regard to the PSED in how it handled his reports.
There is not enough evidence of fault for us to investigate these matters. The Council was entitled to use one officer for both Mr X’s and his neighbour’s cases, and it is not unusual for this to be the case. Mr X said that this amounted to a conflict of interest, however there is no evidence of this nor is it prevented in law.
The PSED includes requirements for organisations to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity. However, the Council must weigh this against its responsibility to protect its staff from abusive behaviour. Mr X’s condition impacts how he communicates. The Council did not deny Mr X the opportunity for noise equipment to be installed, but was entitled to seek an alternative route to install recording equipment by attending at a time when Mr X was absent. The Council considered other evidence Mr X submitted, and said Mr X refused the equipment at other times. There is insufficient evidence the Council failed to have regard to its PSED in how it considered Mr X’s reports.
When the equipment was in place, the noise recorded did not reach the threshold of a statutory nuisance. The noise Mr X reported was made by the neighbour’s disabled children. Noise from children, especially disabled children, will rarely be considered a statutory nuisance because the Council has to consider whether noise is reasonable. The information on the Council’s website makes clear it will not take action against noise made by children. The Council considered the evidence available and acted in line with its policy. It did not find a statutory nuisance so there is no particular action it was required by law to take. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s view, but this does not mean it was at fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot investigate complaints that are the subject of court action, and we will not investigate closely related matters. We will not investigate complaints that are for other agencies, and there is insufficient evidence of fault for us to investigate the remaining matters.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman