Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to carry out an appropriate investigation into vibrations affecting his property from a nearby quarry. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out an appropriate investigation into vibrations affecting his property from a nearby quarry. He says the investigation has not been open and transparent and has favoured the other party.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)
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. Mr X has complained about nuisance from vibrations since 2020. However, there are no good reasons for why Mr X could not have complained to us earlier. Mr X complained to us originally in October 2024. Therefore, we will only consider how the Council has considered and investigated his concerns since October 2023.
8. In relation to statutory nuisance, the duty on the Council is to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate when a person living in their area complains about a potential nuisance.
9. In Mr X’s case, the Council has taken the following steps to investigate:
• Visted Mr X’s property to attempt to witness vibrations. Case notes detailed the officer could not feel any vibrations throughout the visit despite Mr X saying he could feel them. Mr X also reported that when third parties visit, they don’t feel it either.
• Discussions held with operator of the quarry, and visits to the quarry to complete an inspection and review of the operating procedures.
• Comparisons of the quarry’s operating times and Mr X’s vibration diary submissions. The Council’s notes detail that Mr X reported vibrations when the plant was not running.
• Reviewed Mr X’s vibration diary.
• Reviewed the quarry operator’s investigation of the vibration complaints.
10. The Council’s decision was there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance. The Council noted that some members of the member are more affected by low frequency noises or vibration, but that under the law, statutory nuisance must be considered as what affects the ‘normal person’. Therefore, the Council cannot consider where any person has any underlying sensitivity to noise.
11. Mr X’s main dispute appears to be around the Council’s refusal to complete detailed vibration monitoring. The Council said that in the absence of any support evidence to suggest a statutory nuisance, it was not proportionate to complete any vibration monitoring. The Council also confirmed that the quarry operator had refused to complete vibration monitoring, and the Council could not force them to do so.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has met its legal duties by taking reasonably practicable steps to investigate Mr X’s complaints about vibration. The steps the Council has taken has been clearly explained to Mr X and the Council has shared information with Mr X where possible.
13. The Council has fully considered the evidence it gathered before reaching its decision there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance. As the Council has properly considered the matter, it is entitled to make its decision.
14. Further, we could not criticise the Council for its decision not to undertake detailed vibration monitoring. This is a decision for the Council to make, and it has provided its rationale for why it doesn’t consider this action proportionate. Again, as the Council has properly considered the matter, it is entitled to reach its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman