Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to address concerns raised about a neighbouring development. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify investigating, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about a nearby building development. He said there was excessive noise and dust from the works, and that he had seen unsafe practices on the site. He also complained that site traffic and storage was causing problems in the area, and the works had been ongoing for several years longer than planned. Mr X reports that an incident occurred when he raised these concerns with the site manager who then acted in an inappropriate way. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his complaint or act on the concerns raised.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

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

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 complained about excessive noise and dust from the building development. The Council raised these issues with the building contractor and told its Environmental Health department. The Council asked for more information from Mr X about specific instances and asked him to keep a diary of future problems to help inform its investigation. The Council report it has not yet received further information from Mr X but that it continues to liaise with the contractor about the issues raised. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this part of the complaint.
6. The Council reported Mr X’s concerns about unsafe practices on the work site to its Planning Enforcement team. The Council employed an independent Health and Safety inspector who visited the site. The Council advised that it is working with the contractor to improve compliance to safety procedures on site. I will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
7. The Council recognises there is less parking available during the works but said this is under review and there will be increased parking once work is complete. The Council raised the issue of site housekeeping and storage with the contractor. There is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, so I will not investigate this part of the complaint.
8. While I appreciate Mr X’s frustration about the development works taking a lot longer than planned, I do not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint.
9. Mr X says an incident occurred when he raised his concerns with the site manager who reacted inappropriately. The Council says it could not investigate this complaint fully as there were no witnesses. An investigation is not proportionate as we are not likely to be able to reach any other findings due to the conflicting evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman