Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise from a building site. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council approved an extension to working hours on a building site next to his home, without consultation or informing him of the changes.
2. Mr Y says this caused him distress, frustration, and inconvenience as he was repeatedly woken up by the noise. He says this affect his health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr Y has provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In February 2021, the Council approved an application to extend working hours on a building site next to Mr Y’s home to allow work to begin at 7am. The Council say the extension was to enable work to continue effectively while social distancing measures were in place.
8. Mr Y, who lives next to the site and has been unhappy at the noise levels generally, complained to the Council about the extension, in particular that he was not consulted or told about the changes before they were implemented. The Council responded in May.
9. The Council response said it had considered consulting on the suggested change to working hours, but had decided given the impact of the change was not significant in its view, that consultation would not be helpful. It outlined that while Mr Y was unhappy with the noise, it had considered several factors in its decision-making process.
10. The Council said its considerations included the mapping of the site and proximity of the site to nearby housing. It said any complaints previously received about noise, would only be one part of its consideration. It said that the Council’s officer had used their experience to form their view and allow the change to be made. It agreed it may have been helpful to inform Mr Y of the change, which it would consider for future reference to improve its service but did not admit to any fault.
11. Mr Y then approached us in July.

Analysis

12. 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.
13. The Council considered relevant factors in its decision-making process, including whether consultation should be made it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in this complaint. While Mr Y may have preferred to be told of the change in working hours before this began, this is not a requirement. It is therefore unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman