Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaints about the way the Council dealt with her reports of vibration from a development near her home. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains works near her home caused vibration that has damaged her property. Ms B says the Council should have acted to stop the works and she says she has suffered from the damage as well as upset and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Ms B and the Council’s response to her complaint. I sent a draft decision to Ms B and considered the comments she made in reply before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B contacted the Council in February 2019 to report vibration and noise from a nearby development. An officer from the Council contacted the site manager and was told the works were to install storm drains. The site manager said the banging noises would last for a few days and then not occur for another week.
6. The officer passed this information to Ms B, and when the works were about to recommence, the officer informed Ms B.
7. In March 2019, Ms B told the Council she was concerned that vibration from the site was damaging her property. The officer said they would visit Ms B when she next noted the vibration she was concerned about.
8. The officer visited Ms B’s property and the site on 25 March 2019 after Ms B had requested a visit. The officer did not witness any noise nuisance or excessive vibration. The Council says Ms B did not request any further visits and made no further complaints after April 2019.
9. Ms B considers the Council did not deal with her complaint properly and this meant the development continued and caused damage to her property. While Ms B considers the Council should have done more, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint.
10. Whether the development caused damage to Ms B’s property is a matter between Ms B and the developer. Ms B will have a remedy by way of a civil claim in the courts if she considers the developer’s actions have caused her a financial loss.
11. For a local authority to take enforcement action against the developer, it must witness a nuisance. An officer visited the site in response to Ms B’s complaint but did not witness a nuisance. There was therefore no enforcement action the Council could take.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman