The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s response to her complaints of noise nuisance from a games area near her home. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance from a games area near her home. She wants the Council to move the area away from her home.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.
My assessment
A games area was built in 2007 near to where Ms X currently lives. It is owned and operated by the local parish council.
Last year Ms X complained to the Council about noise nuisance from the games area and about its handling of her complaints. The Council explained to Ms X that it has no legal powers to require the games area to be moved and it set out how, in the opinion of its technical specialist in environmental noise, it could best carry out its noise investigations.
It is not our role to question decisions a council takes if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. It is for officers, using their professional judgement, to decide how to progress an investigation and we cannot review the merits of these decisions.
In responding to my draft decision, Ms X says there was fault by the Council in the way it handled and processed her complaint. However, we do not generally investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue and there are insufficient grounds here to warrant investigation of Ms X’s complaint. Ms X also says the play area contravenes distances currently recommended by experts and that this should mean councils adapting and complying with the new regulations and guidelines. However, the games area is owned and operated by the parish council so the Council would not have to consider whether retrospective action was required of it or not.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman