Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to reports of dust nuisance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained building work completed by Council contractors caused dust to enter her property. She said she was unhappy with how the Council investigated her reports of dust nuisance.
2. She said it failed to carry out a thorough inspection, did not collect dust samples and did not consider her health. She wants the Council to clean and repair her bathroom vent or redirect it through her kitchen to the outside.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms X reported to the Council that building work completed by contractors caused dust to enter her property. Two Council Officers attended Ms X’s property and completed a site visit.
10. The Council issued a report based on its site visit and information provided by the housing company and contractors.
11. The report said the building, including inside Ms X’s flat, was found to be clear of dust. It said dust was expected on the access route, but this was cleaned daily, and fire doors were in place between the worksite and Ms X’s property. The Council consulted neighbours who reported no concerns.
12. Ms X continued to report dust and said the Council did not consider her health problems. The Council explained to Ms X that her bathroom vent was not connected to the worksite, and was designed to direct air outside the bathroom. It also said to contact the Adult Social Care team if she felt social care support would be helpful and to contact health services to address her health concerns.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council responded to Ms X’s concerns appropriately by carrying out a site visit. It found the level of dust pollution was not actionable and based its decision on the effect the dust would have on the average person. It also signposted her to services to address her other issues. There is not enough evidence of fault in the steps the Council took to investigate her concerns to justify our involvement.
14. In the Council’s complaint it confirmed the contractors were not working on behalf of the Council. Therefore, any complaint the contractors work has damaged her property is a private matter between Ms X and the contractor.
15. Ms X complained that she was not notified about the work completed in her building. It was not the responsibility of the Council to notify Ms X. This would be a matter for her landlord, and we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about social landlords.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman