Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled compensation for noise nuisance from a demolition site. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a compensation scheme for noise. He says the Council’s demolition of a bridge near to his home created a significant noise nuisance. Mr X says the Council has offered compensation to other households nearby, but the Council did not assess the impact of the noise properly for his home. He would like money to compensate the distress it caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. People may complain to us about injustice caused by:
• ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ by a public organisation we could investigate; or
• the actions of an organisation in connection with privately arranged adult social care.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) or section 34C(1)(a)).

3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).
4. We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council is managing a large-scale infrastructure project to replace an aging bridge. The current bridge was demolished over a continuous 48-hour period in December 2025.
8. The Council assessed which homes would be most impacted and offered financial compensation for temporary relocation to those most likely to be impacted. Mr X’s home was not one of the households offered compensation as the Council deemed the impact to Mr X did not warrant it.
9. The law means we can choose only to investigate a complaint where the person has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. I recognise the circumstances of Mr X’s complaint have affected him, but this is not significant enough to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman