Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over her complaints about nuisance from a neighbour’s tumble drier. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council’s failure to investigate properly her complaint about excessive vibration from a neighbour’s tumble drier. She says it should employ specialist equipment to properly record the vibration being caused in her flat.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint and she has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X lives with her parents next to a household which she says has affected their standard of living due to excessive vibration from a tumble drier. She says the drier must be of poor quality or be overloaded because when used vibration can be felt in her home. She says this has been happening for two years and although the tumble drier was replaced the effects remain with the replacement appliance.
5. The Council sent officers on more than one occasion and they left recording equipment to monitor the use of the drier. Miss X says the equipment was for sound recording and her complaint is about vibration. The Council says the device did record some vibration but its level and endurance would not constitute a statutory nuisance. Officers also told her at the property that they did not feel the vibration was significant.
6. Councils have a duty to investigate complaints about nuisance. It is for the professional opinion of its officers to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists. The Council in this case did not consider that normal use of a domestic appliance by the neighbour was something which would be a statutory nuisance and which would warrant an abatement notice.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman