Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning and building control matters. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. The complainant can appeal if he disagrees with the decision from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with sound issues following developments at two neighbouring properties. He says:

• his concerns about a possible breach of planning control were not properly investigated and officers provided false information;
• planning conditions were not adequate;
• building regulations have not been complied with;
• he is unhappy with how his request for information was handled;
• his complaint has not been properly dealt with.

2. Mr X says noise from the properties has had a significant impact on his home and is affecting his sleep.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X has raised many concerns about the development at the property below his. He says the Council failed to apply adequate planning conditions to ensure proper sound installation. However, it is for the Council to decide what planning conditions will be necessary and it has explained why a condition relating to sound installation was not required. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.
10. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control at the property and says the enforcement officer gave false information. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns and an officer visited the site. However, the Council decided it had no grounds on which to take enforcement action as the development had been built in line with the approved plans. Mr X says the officer incorrectly said parts of the property were carpeted. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any errors in this regard. I am satisfied the Council did consider if enforcement action was necessary and planning permission is not needed to change the type of flooring in the property.
11. Mr X has also raised concerns about another development near his home. He says building regulations have not been complied with as proper sound proofing has not been installed. However, the Council has explained why it considers the development complies with regulations and provides reasonable resistance to sound. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was again entitled to use its professional judgement.
12. Mr X is concerned about ongoing noise issues from the properties. However, he can contact the Council’s environmental health team if he believes the noise amounts to a statutory nuisance.
13. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his request for information. He has already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in relation to the issues. The ICO has issued a decision. If Mr X disagrees with the ICO’s decision he can appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. I consider it reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal right and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate matters where someone has a right of appeal.
14. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. Mr X has the right to appeal if he disagrees with the ICO’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman