The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a complaint of noise nuisance. The Council was not at fault for investigating the report it received. The Council’s alleged failure to deal with Mr X in person rather than in writing did not disadvantage Mr X significantly enough to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council wrongly acted on a report of noise from his property and did not meet his request for reasonable adjustments in the way it communicated with him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990, councils have a duty to investigate reports of noise nuisance. (Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 79(1)) Someone reported noise nuisance to the Council and suggested it might be coming from Mr X’s home. Mr X said he was not the source and is unhappy the Council contacted him about this. The Council’s investigation included writing to Mr X about the report. It: described the legal steps the Council might take if someone was causing a statutory noise nuisance; spoke with Mr X to discuss the complaint and gain evidence from him; and gave him advice about what he should do if he thought someone else was responsible for the noise.
This is all part of the Council’s usual response to complaints of this nature.
We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council investigated this matter. The law requires the Council to investigate such reports. Mr X saying the noise did not come from his property was part of the council’s investigation. The Council did not decide Mr X was causing noise nuisance or take any action against him.
Mr X referred to adjustments he asked the council to make when communicating with him. He complains the council failed to act on them as he had hoped.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the Council, in carrying out public services, has a duty to consider how a disabled person has access to its services, as close to as reasonably possible, to that of a non-disabled person.
We would expect, if Mr X requested telephone communication, the Council should have properly considered and responded to such a request. We recognise Mr X might have experienced some frustration and distress if the Council did not deal with him as he had asked.
However, that in itself is not a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to looking into this part of the complaint when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council investigated the alleged nuisance; and any failure to adjust its procedures for Mr X did not in itself cause him significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman