Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about roadworks outside his home. This is because the injustice he has suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained about the lack of adequate communication about proposed works, noisy works starting too early in the morning on two occasions and the Council’s responses to his complaint. Mr B told us he suffered two very disturbed nights.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s responses to his complaint. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council that he did not receive notification of surface dressing works to the road outside his home until the evening before activities started. On the following day he said his whole household was woken up just after 5 am by a road sweeping vehicle manoeuvring backwards and forwards outside their home. He said a second equally noisy vehicle followed shortly afterwards and the vehicles operated for about 45 minutes. But no resurfacing work took place that day. Mr B told the Council a road sweeping vehicle again woke him on the following day. He said, when he checked the time on his clock, it was showing 4.16 am. Mr B complained the Council was showing a total disregard and contempt for local residents by beginning work so early and so far in advance of the surface dressing work which did not start until just after 9 am.
5. Mr B was dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint. He told us he found it inadequate and it failed to relate to the points he raised. For example, the Council said it completed works to dual carriageways during the night period but he does not live on a dual carriageway.
6. In its response to Mr B’s complaint the Council explained that the work took place at a particularly busy time of the year. It said it would do its utmost to keep noise to a minimum but, due to the nature of road sweeping, this is not always possible. The Council apologised to Mr B for the disruption he had suffered.
7. As well as making efforts to keep noise disturbance to a minimum, the Council needs to minimise the disturbance its activities cause to road users and the risks to the safety of its workers. In this case, Mr B and his household have had their sleep interrupted on two occasions. But, bearing in mind the Council has apologised for the disruption, the injustice they have suffered is not significant enough to justify the Ombudsman investigating this complaint, We would not investigate a standalone complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint if we are not investigating the issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice the complainant has suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman