Summary: There is no evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to refuse Mr C’s request to move a cycle storage unit, which is close to his property.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his request to move a cycle storage unit close to his property. Mr C says the unit and the users of the unit make a lot of noise and disturbs his sleep.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered Mr C’s complaint and corresponded with him about his complaint.
5. I reviewed the Council’s responses to Mr C about his complaint and considered additional information provided by the Council.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. In January 2016, the Council consulted on the installation of several cycle storage units in the Borough.
8. There are several car parking spaces outside of Mr C’s property. The Council’s proposals included a unit being placed in one of these spaces, leaving other car parking spaces in use.
9. Residents were sent a document informing them about the proposals and inviting their comments.
10. The Council received 14 responses to the consultation, with 71% expressing their support of the installation of the storage units. The Council subsequently decided to carry out the installation, which was completed in summer 2018.

What happened

11. In January 2020, Mr C complained to the Council about the location of the cycle storage unit. Mr C said the noise of people removing bikes from the unit and opening and closing the door kept him awake. He therefore requested that the unit be moved to a different location, away from his property.
12. An officer from Transport Projects, the team responsible for the installation of the units, visited Mr C at his home to discuss his complaint. The officer says he observed that the use of the storage unit made a noise similar to that of a car door being closed. The officer said he would however be contacting the provider of the unit, about the issue.
13. The officer subsequently contacted the manufacturers of the unit and asked it to suggest a way to lessen the noise of the unit. The Council then wrote to Mr C explaining the steps it had taken.
14. Discussions between the officer and the manufacturer of the storage unit continued. The manufacturer told the officer that the door mechanism already had a system which prevents the door being slammed shut. The manufacturer view was that this system meant the unit made a similar noise to a car boot being closed.
15. Dissatisfied with the Officers response, Mr C asked for his complaint to be progressed to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
16. The officer involved in the case subsequently started sick leave so did not respond to Mr C’s request, so he contacted the Council’s complaints team.
17. Mr C told the Council he was dissatisfied with the Council’s proposal to work with the manufacturers to reduce the noise of the operation of the storage. Mr C said that this would not resolve the issue because it is also the people using the unit that make noise and disturb him.
18. Mr C told the Council that he was not consulted about the unit and he wanted it moved.
19. The Council said it would place the unit onto a list of locations to be reviewed, but that this would take several months and would likely be considered the following year.

Analysis

20. Mr C says the cycle storage unit is being used late at night and early in the morning by people being noisy and that the mechanism also makes a noise.
21. Mr C says the unit should not have been located where it is and should be moved to somewhere it will not disturb people.
22. I am satisfied that the Council took reasonable steps to investigate Mr C’s concerns. It attended the site and witnessed the noise the mechanism made. It subsequently contacted the manufacturer of the unit and gained more information about its closing mechanism.
23. On balance, I do not consider the Council was at fault for not exploring the noise of the closing mechanism further. The unit is located next to car parking spaces. The Council attended the site witnessed the operation of the unit, compared it to the closing of a car door, a view supported by the manufacturer. I therefore consider it took reasonable steps to consider Mr C’s concerns and has justified how it reached its conclusions.
24. Mr C complains that the cycle storage unit should not have been placed where it is and should be moved.
25. The Council consulted on the location of this and other units before they were installed, and most residents were in favour of its location.
26. After receiving Mr C’s complaint, the Council has agreed to review the location of the unit. It has added it to a list to review and informed Mr C roughly when the review will take place. On balance, I consider this to be a reasonable response to Mr C’s concerns and therefore do not consider there to be any evidence of fault in the Council’s decision.
27. In the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman