Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to notify Mr X directly, rather than his landlord, about planned demolition works close to his home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should have told him directly, rather than his landlord, about planned demolition works due to take place close to his home. This left him unable to find new accommodation before the works started and he has had to endure noise, dirt, stress and a loss of privacy.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X rents a private property which is sited close to where the Council carried out demolition work. In advance of the work, the Council first notified Mr X’s landlord of the intended work in October 2020, advising that it expected to do the work in mid-2021. It also published notification of the intended work in the local newspaper. A few weeks before the work started in late-2021, the Council notified the landlord of the exact start date. Mr X’s landlord told him about the works about 2 months before they were due to start.
6. As a tenant, and not a property owner, Mr X was not directly notified of the works by the Council and he complained to the Council about this. The Council explained that it had been up to the landlord, and not the Council, to discuss matters with tenants and that it could not control what information was shared.
7. It acknowledged that demolition work was, by its nature, noisy and it apologised that Mr X had been affected by the work. It noted Mr X’s dissatisfaction that during the work the entrance to his road had been restricted for a short period, but it did not uphold his complaint.
8. While it appears Mr X’s landlord only gave him limited notice of the intended work, despite having been made aware of it in October 2020, the Council is not responsible for the landlord’s actions. It publicised the work in the local paper and notified the landlord and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find it acted with fault sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman