Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about disturbance and damage to his property caused by nearby roadworks. Part of the complaint is late, it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome and the courts are better placed to consider a complaint about liability for damage to property.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his complaint about various adverse impacts caused by major roadworks near his home. He says vibrations and dust from the roadworks have damaged his property, affected his daily life and caused distress. He also says the Council has failed to divert a public footpath or act following his reports of trespass onto his property. He wants the Council to compensate him for damage to his property, distress and loss of residential amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X first complained to the Council about noise and dust nuisance from the roadworks in 2024.He brought his complaint to us in 2026. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because it is late. If Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s actions at that time, I can see no good reason why he could not have approached us sooner.
9. Mr X complained to the Council again about dust nuisance in July 2025. In response, the Council liaised with the county council, as the lead authority responsible for the works. The county council advised that in response to a similar complaint from a third party, it’s contractor had implemented increased dust suppression measures. The Council was satisfied the actions taken were appropriate. It decided to take no further action and wrote to Mr X to advise him of its decision. It advised him to contact the case officer, if the problem reoccurred. It says it did not receive further contact from Mr X, so closed the complaint.
10. Mr X complained again in November 2025. In its complaint responses, the Council clarified that it was not the lead authority who had commissioned the works and that its involvement was limited to assessment of statutory nuisance and ensuring compliance with the approved planning permission. It accepted some fault with its earlier complaints handling and apologised for this. It said it would contact him further to discuss his concerns regarding drainage. It said if he had ongoing concerns regarding noise or dust disturbance, it was willing to open a new statutory nuisance investigation. It said any concerns about trespass were a civil matter, for which it was not responsible.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. Although I accept Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his reports of dust and noise disturbance, I am satisfied the Council has appropriately considered and responded to his concerns. It has offered Mr X a fresh statutory nuisance investigation, and it is open to Mr X to accept this offer. It is unlikely an investigation by us would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.
12. We will not investigate his complaint about management of a public footpath as this Council is not responsible for managing or maintaining public footpaths in Mr X’s area.
13. If Mr X considers the Council liable for damage to his property, it is open to him to make a claim through the Council’s insurers and if dissatisfied with the outcome, take the matter to court. We cannot determine liability and so are not the appropriate body to investigate this part of the complaint. Only the courts can decide if the Council is liable for any damage to Mr X’s property and if so, whether it should pay compensation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late, an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome and if Mr X considers the Council liable for damage to his property, he can take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman