Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of noise and light nuisance, parking problems and breaches of planning control from a business near the complainants home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mrs X, complains about how the Council has dealt with her reports of noise and light nuisance, breaches of planning control and issues with parking. Mrs X also complains about poor communication from the Council about these matters and poor complaint handling. The issues raised by Mrs X are in relation to a business close to her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In responding to Mrs X’s reports of light nuisance, the Council spoke with the business owner and work was carried out on lighting around the site. The Council monitored the matter and when the work was completed, it visited the site again, assessed the lighting and reached the decision that there was no light nuisance.
8. In responding to Mrs X’s reports of noise nuisance, the Council installed sound monitoring equipment. The recordings were subsequently analysed, but no evidence of a noise nuisance was found. The Council has offered to install noise monitoring equipment again, but Mrs X has not told the Council what dates she is available for the equipment to be installed.
9. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her reports of noise and light nuisance This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has taken appropriate action when investigating these matters, considering relevant information. Whilst Mrs X may disagree with the Council’s conclusions, I have seen no evidence that its decision making was affected by fault and therefore cannot question the merits of the decisions it reached.
10. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with parking issues on the roads close her home. In 2018, after consultation with residents, the Council concluded that no further parking restrictions should be introduced. I will not investigate how the Council reached that decision because it happened too long ago and I see no reason why it could not have been raised with the Ombudsman sooner.
11. The Council has said there are very few restrictions in place and therefore very little action it can take. It has advised Mrs X about how she can apply for restrictions outside her property if she wishes. Having considered this response, I see no evidence of fault with how the Council has dealt with her concerns about parking in the area.
12. Mrs X has reported breaches of planning control by the business. On occasions where the Council has agreed that a breach has taken place it has spoken with the business owner who has either stopped the unauthorised activity or submitted a retrospective planning application and so the Council has not taken formal enforcement action.
13. Mrs X said the business owner had recently breached planning conditions due to it operating another business on site, Mrs X also reported that the business was open outside of its operating hours. The Council concluded that the additional business was not a breach of planning conditions and explained its reason why. The Council also concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the business was regularly operating outside its operating hours, and therefore could not justify enforcement action.
14. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control by the business. Mrs X may disagree with the Council’s approach, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide if breaches had taken place and if enforcement action was necessary or not. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.
15. In responding to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council accepted that on occasion its correspondence with her had been poor. I will not investigate this element of Mrs X’s complaint because the Council has apologised for this and therefore, we could not add to its response. Mrs X also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaints, but it is not a good use of public funds to investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive elements of a complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman