Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s report of possible breaches of building regulations and delay in responding to his complaint. While the Council’s lack of response and failure to follow the complaint procedure is fault, we consider an investigation will not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to respond to his concerns about whether his neighbour’s property complies with building regulations. He also complains it failed to respond to his subsequent complaint.
2. Mr X says he has suffered anxiety and loss of sleep because of noise from his neighbour’s property.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his neighbour has converted their garage to a habitable room. In late 2024, Mr X asked the Council to confirm whether changes his neighbour made to their property meet building regulations. After receiving no reply, Mr X complained in December.
7. In January, the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to his enquiry. It explained the delay was because it was working with a reduced number of staff. It also said it prioritises its building control regulations and could not confirm when it would be able to respond to his original enquiry.
8. Mr X was not satisfied with the response and escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process.
9. The Council did not respond until July.
10. In its final response the Council acknowledges the lack of communication is unacceptable. It says while it still has staffing issues it will make an effort to improve.
11. The Council also says following Mr X’s report of concern about his neighbour’s development its officers have tried to engage with his neighbour by:
• driving by the property in November and seeing no sign of work
• visiting the property in December with no answer
• sending a letter to the property in December with no response
• sending another letter to the property in February with no response; and
• visiting the property again in July with no answer.

It confirms it will continue to keep the matter under review.

12. The failure to communicate with Mr X and the significant delay in responding to his complaint is fault. The Council apologised to Mr X in January. While we expect Council’s to follow their complaints process, we do not consider it a good use of public funds to investigate when the only possible outcome is another apology.
13. I understand Mr X is concerned his neighbour are using their garage as a habitable room and wants to know if the conversion meets building regulations. However, he says the injustice he has suffered because of his neighbour’s actions is sleep disturbance and anxiety because of noise nuisance.
14. Mr X can report noise nuisance to the Council’s environmental health department who may carry out an investigation to determine whether the neighbour is causing a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is not a good use of public funds to investigate to obtain an apology. The Council confirms it will keep his report of his neighbour’s garage conversion under review and an investigation into this point is unlikely to lead to worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman