Summary: Ms X complains the Council has delayed action to address a statutory nuisance. We will not investigate because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has delayed taking action to address a statutory nuisance from June 2023 to date.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X first contacted us in February 2024. The Council provided stage 1 complaint responses in April 2024 and then January 2025. I have not seen evidence Ms X has completed the Council’s complaints process however, as the matter is ongoing and as the Council has had reasonable chance to reply, I consider there is good reason to consider the complaint now.
8. Where a council identifies a statutory nuisance it should issue an abatement notice. If the property owner does not comply with the notice the council can consider formal action, including prosecution, however this is at the council’s discretion.
9. I cannot say any delay in the Council acting on the reported nuisance from June to October 2023 caused significant injustice. This is because the Council has discretion what action to take and it is not possible to say any earlier action by the Council would have resulted in the nuisance ceasing, either sooner or at all.
10. The Council issued an abatement notice in October 2023. Following expiry, in January 2024, the Council told to Ms X it was in discussion with the owners to carry out works to resolve the nuisance. It said it did not consider it appropriate to issue formal proceedings for any breach of the notice. It explained that while there was progress towards compliance this would not be in the public interest. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make.
11. In April 2024 the Council told Ms X it expected a planning application to be submitted shortly. And in the meantime the owner was taking steps to mitigate the impact of the breach.
12. The Council then liaised with the owners in progressing the planning the application. The Council has updated the Ombudsman that information remains outstanding so it cannot yet validate the planning application.
13. I appreciate Ms X is frustrated that the nuisance is ongoing. However, it is up to the Council to decide what action to take. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to justify an investigation.
14. It is not proportionate to investigate a complaint about the Council’s level of communication when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman