Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about disturbance from the Care Provider’s Care Home which neighbours Mr X’s property. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation and there is another body better placed to consider his concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Care Provider failed to properly investigate his concerns in relation to disturbance from its care home which is near his property. The matter has affected Mr X’s health. As part of an outcome, Mr X wants an apology and for the Care Provider to review its investigation. He also wants the Care Provider to be considerate of him as a neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives near a care home. Mr X complained to the Care Provider about disturbances from its care home which have affected his health. He said:
• a gardener carrying out works at the Care Home was operating machinery which had disturbed him;
• his neighbours were cutting their grass which he believes the Care Home had orchestrated to disturb him;
• a staff member at the Care Home had aggressively shut a door which caused a loud noise;
• a vehicle arrived outside his property for the Care Home;
• the Care Home’s fire alarm had been set off; and
• contractors were carrying out tree works which were loud.
6. The Care Provider investigated Mr X’s concerns. It reviewed its CCTV footage, any contractor records it had, its maintenance and operational records and it spoke with relevant staff at the Care Home. The Care Provider found it had no evidence to support Mr X’s claims that the Care Home was intentionally disturbing him. It added any activities observed around the Care Home were part of normal care home operations, such as staff movements, deliveries, contractors and maintenance.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation. The Care Provider appropriately investigated his concerns using the evidence available, including CCTV, relevant records and information from staff. It found no evidence that the activities were intended to disturb Mr X or were anything other than normal for the Care Home’s operations.
8. In addition, the Council is better placed to consider whether the noise from these activities amounts to an unreasonable or statutory nuisance. The Council has specialist environmental health officers and the appropriate powers and equipment to assess noise levels and, where necessary, take enforcement action. We therefore consider it reasonable for Mr X to raise any ongoing concerns about noise disturbance with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation and there is another body better placed to consider his concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman