Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the operation of a nursery in Ms X’s area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I call Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the operation of a nursery. She says it has not taken action against a planning breach at the nursery, nor against noise nuisance and parking issues associated with it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about the operation of a nursery in her area. She raised concerns about noise and parking issues, the consultation carried out by the Council at the time the original grant of permission for the nursery was given and about a planning breach currently taking place.
7. The Council gave Ms X details of the consultation it had undertaken over 5 years ago when the original planning application had been considered and, in relation to the report of a planning breach, it advised her that a new planning application had been received in relation to the nursery’s current use of the building and that this would be considered in the normal way.
8. With regard to the noise nuisance Ms X complained about, the Council said that it would be unlikely to find noise from children playing to constitute a statutory nuisance. However, it invited Ms X to submit a noise diary to allow an assessment to take place. It told Ms X that with regard to the parking problems she had reported, it would continue to enforce the parking restrictions in the area and that she could complete a parking diary sheet which would allow the Council to better monitor the situation. It also advised that it would write to the nursery to remind staff and parents to park with consideration and in accordance with any parking restrictions.
9. Ms X’s concern about the consultation which took place over five years ago falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to it because we would reasonably have expected her to have complained to us about it sooner and it is too late for us to consider it now.
10. The Council has responded appropriately to Ms X’s concerns about the planning breach, noise and inconsiderate parking and there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in its handling of these matters. It is open to Ms X to provide diary information to the Council if she wishes.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman