Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mrs X’s concerns about a neighbours business. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to address reports of nuisance caused by a neighbour’s business. She said its customers accessed it through a path that overlooked her garden.
2. She said it caused her anxiety and health issues. She wants customers to access the business through its front door and to have her privacy restored.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained customers accessed the business through a path that is for residents use only. Mrs X said the Council did not act on her concerns and made a formal complaint. The Council provided Mrs X with a separate response from its Planning Service and its Environmental Health & Licensing Service.
7. In its Planning Service’s response, the Council said Mrs X’s complaint about access rights was a civil matter, but it did speak to the neighbour and asked if it would be possible for customers to use the front entrance. It said it assessed the material use of the property and determined there was no material change that needed planning permission.
8. In its Environmental Health & Licensing Service response, the Council said it completed unannounced and announced visits to the business. It confirmed its licencing terms were being met.
9. The Council said a further response was not required because Mrs X’s complaint was not about a statutory nuisance.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council explained its powers to Mrs X. It said her complaint about access is a civil matter but spoke to the neighbour about Mrs X’s complaint. It visited the business and confirmed that its licensing terms were being met and said there was no material change in the business that required planning permission. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.
11. Mrs X said as a result of her complaint she wanted customers of the business to access it through its front door. This is a civil matter, and the Council cannot resolve civil matters. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman