Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms B’s complaints about a neighbouring care home.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about matters relating to a neighbouring care home. In particular, she complains about nuisance, breaches of planning control, the care home’s failure to contribute to the cost of necessary repairs and issues relating to the care home’s registration.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Ms B’s complaints about nuisance, including nuisance caused by noise, anti-social behaviour and residents smoking beneath her window. The last section of this statement explains why I have not investigated Ms B’s other complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms B lives on the first floor of a two-storey detached property. She has lived there for more than 25 years.
7. The ground floor of the property has been used as a care home for around 30 years. Both Ms B and the owner of the care home are leaseholders.
8. Ms B complained to the Council in January 2019 about various matters relating to the care home. In particular, she complained about:
• a smoking shed which she says was erected without planning permission,
• residents smoking beneath her windows,
• the risk of fire,
• anti-social behaviour,
• noise nuisance,
• the owner of the care home not contributing to the cost of repairs,
• the smell from bins stored beneath her windows,
• planning breaches, and
• the care home operating between 1989 and 1995 without being registered.
9. Council officers visited in June 2019. They found that the smoking shed was locked and no longer in use and the bins were clean and tidy and had been moved away from the property. They spoke to the owner of the care home and advised that measures needed to be put in place to ensure residents did not smoke under Ms B’s windows.
10. Ms B was not happy with the Council’s response and asked to escalate her complaint. In the Council’s response, it explained that her complaints about leasehold responsibilities were civil matters and outside of the Council’s remit. The Council responded to Ms B’s concerns about the planning permission granted in 1992 and explained why it did not consider there to be a breach of planning control. It also explained why the erection of the smoking shed was lawful.
11. Following further correspondence from Ms B, an Environmental Health Officer visited Ms B and the care home. He found that the smoking shed was no longer in use but that residents were smoking beneath one of Ms B’s windows. The Council issued a Prohibition Notice instructing the care home to ensure the shed and areas under Ms B’s windows were not used by residents as smoking areas. The officer told Ms B that there was no noise nuisance at the time of his visit, and he explained that in order to issue an abatement notice, any nuisance would need to be witnessed by officers.

Analysis

12. I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken to address Ms B’s concerns about people smoking beneath her windows. It visited and spoke to the owner of the care home and then when it found that residents were continuing to smoke beneath Ms B’s windows, it issued a Prohibition Notice. I have found no evidence of fault here.
13. The Council properly explained to Ms B that many of the matters she was complaining about were not within its remit, such as the owner of the care home not contributing to the cost of repairs, and her concerns about fire risk assessments and registration of the care home. The Council also considered Ms B’s planning concerns and has explained why it does not consider there are any breaches of planning control. I have found no evidence of fault here.
14. Ms B has not reported any specific incidents of noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour in the last 12 months. Ms B should contact the Council’s Environmental Health team if residents continue to smoke under her window or if she experiences any noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour. She should report the matter straight away so that officers can consider what action to take, which may involve visiting to witness the alleged nuisance or breach of the Prohibition Notice.

Final decision

15. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Ms B’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

16. I have not investigated Ms B’s complaints about the owner of the care home not contributing to the cost of repairs, or her concerns about fire risk assessments and the registration of the care home. This is because these matters are not within the Council’s remit.
17. I have also not investigated Ms B’s complaints about matters which she has been aware of for more than 12 months. As explained in paragraph three, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I have decided that we should not exercise discretion to investigate because it would have been reasonable for Ms B to complain sooner, and I do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman