Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his concerns about a development near his home. There is not enough evidence of fault on how the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns to justify our involvement. Mr X has also raised concerns that fall outside our remit to consider.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his concerns about a development close to his home. He says the Council failed to:

• stop what he describes as toxic waste near his home, which he believes caused him serious and permanent eye damage.
• prevent excessive noise and fumes from the site.
• prevent criminal harassment and threats of violence from the developer’s staff working on the site.
• stop the developer from operating CCTV which Mr X says unlawfully targets him and his family.
• prevent destruction of local wildlife and trees.
• prevent a loss of light to his property caused by the development.

2. Mr X says these failings have caused him significant distress, permanent injury to his eye, disruption to his work, and a loss of amenity to his home.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My Assessment

10. The Council granted planning permission for a housing development near Mr X’s home. The permission included a Construction Management Plan to control issues such as noise, dust, and working hours.
11. The Council retained responsibility for monitoring compliance with planning conditions and environmental health regulations, but day-to-day site management was the developer’s responsibility.
12. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns by visiting the site, consulting relevant departments, and confirming compliance with the Construction Management Plan. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s complaints about noise, dust, and environmental health.
13. The Ombudsman will not investigate because:

• allegations of criminal offences such assault or harassment are matters for the police.
• claims for personal injury or financial loss– we cannot determine liability such claims. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as Mr X’s sight loss or lost earnings, which Mr X considers the Council and/or the developer to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue these claims through either his insurer or the courts.
• concerns about the developer’s use of CCTV are matters for the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO) to consider, because they relate to Mr X and his family’s right to privacy. It would be reasonable for Mr X to bring these concerns to the ICO’s attention as we have no power to intervene in such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered his concerns about the development to justify our involvement. In addition, there are other bodies better placed to consider some of the concerns Mr X has.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman