The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance. This is because the Council responded to these reports in line with its policy and it is unlikely we would find fault in its response.
The complaint
Mr X complained, saying he had made numerous reports of noise nuisance caused by another resident. He said the Council had only recently taken substantive action by asking him to keep a diary of these events. He said the noise had caused him and his family unnecessary anxiety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X said he had been reporting noise complaints to the Council since March 2024. I have only considered matters from July 2024 onwards, because those earlier noise complaints are now late. This is because they occurred more than 12 months before Mr X complained to us in July 2025. And I have not seen any good reasons why Mr X could not have raised them to us sooner.
In so far as the matters I have considered, which include the Council’s actions up until November 2025, Mr X raised several noise complaints. The available evidence shows in these reports, the Council responded and I have summarised the actions the Council took variously, as follows: Issued warning letters and spoke to the alleged perpetrators of noise.
Visited Mr X at his home and outside his apartment block to witness the noise.
Asked Mr X to complete a diary of events and installed noise monitoring equipment (NME).
Held an Anti-social behaviour case review meeting to discuss Mr X’s case.
After it considered the evidence, it had gathered from the NME, the Council decided the noise did not meet the threshold for a statutory noise nuisance and closed the case.
Given the Council’s actions, which it carried out in line with its policy, it is unlikely we would find fault in how it responded. Therefore, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.
Mr X also expressed concern the Council refused to take a complaint about this issue. It is not proportionate for us to investigate complaint handling matters, where we are not investigating the substantive issues.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman