Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his request for them to move a park bench away from his property, and how it replied to his complaint. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils' complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property the garden of which shares a boundary with a Council‑owned park. He complains the Council:
1. has not properly considered his request for them to move a park bench away from the boundary of his property;
2. failed to properly acknowledge his concerns as valid in its complaint response, which he considered to be dismissive.
2. Mr X says there is persistent noise, music and cigarette smoke nuisances from users of the bench. He says this has significantly disrupted his peaceful enjoyment of his property and he cannot relax in his garden or open his property’s windows. Mr X wants the Council to move the bench to a different location, away from residential properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint about nuisance from users of the park bench. He describes the nuisances as ‘routine’ ones. Officers noted the bench provides an important place for visitors to rest and is the only one in that part of the park. Officers decided the nuisance Mr X was reporting gave them insufficient reason to move the bench. We note Mr X considers the Council did not recognise he was complaining about persistent nuisance from users of the bench. But officers considered the routine type of nuisance he reported in his complaint to reach their decision. The Council advised Mr X to report any anti-social behaviour to the police and any major noise incidents to Council officers. They said they would use that information to decide if they needed to take any action in future.
6. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s decision-making process we will not investigate. We understand Mr X is annoyed by the routine daily noise of conversations or music, and drifting smoke, from users of the bench. But any residents in a property next to a park can expect to have some such day-to-day impacts from the park’s users, albeit that the bench may concentrate that here to some degree. The annoyance from these routine uses of the bench and their impacts on Mr X’s use of his garden and home do not amount to a sufficiently significant injustice to him to warrant us investigating.
7. If there are noise incidents at any time, which are louder than the routine impacts Mr X has so far reported, these are the events the Council has encouraged him to refer to its officers. It would be for those Council officers to decide what action, if any, they should take in response.
8. We understand Mr X considers the Council’s complaint response was dismissive of his concerns. But we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. Mr X wants the Council to move the bench away from all residential properties. We could not order councils to move items to other parts of their property. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils' complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint; and
• we cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman