Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about out of hours road works as there is not enough evidence of significant personal injustice and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council contracted out of hours work to be completed on the road outside of his property. Mr X says the contractors failed to apply for the correct permissions to complete the work out of normal hours. Mr X says tThe works caused noise disturbance which affected hiMr X’s health. HeMr X would like a full apology from the Council, a review of procedures and compensation.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

I've just added a 2nd bullet point

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

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcom.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. On 22 June 2023, road repairs took place on a street outside of Mr X’s home. The works began at about 11pm and lasted less than one hour.
7. Mr X complained to the Council that this work had unnecessarily been completed out of hours and the noise disturbance during this work had a significant impact on his health and his family.
8. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and apologised for any inconvenience caused to Mr X and his family as a result of the works.
9. The Council agree with Mr X that the works did not need to take place out of hours however there was an oversight when granting these works. The Council failed to ensure the contractor had the correct permission to complete this work. The Council admits these faults and agrees it should have carried out its due diligence when approving the works.
10. The Council states it will use this as a learning curve to ensure residents will not be disturbed by works which have not been approved for out of hours work. The Council will ensure its inspectors double check forms to ensure there is no miscommunication between itself, its inspectors and its contractors.
11. The Council has ensured its contractor is aware of the correct procedure for receiving approval from Environmental Health prior to completing any further works. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. There is no evidence the works have caused Mr X significant personal injustice. I appreciate it may have been distressing for Mr X, but we will not investigate where there is not significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice he experienced is not significant enough to justify our involvement and, in any event, the Council has apologised and recognised that service improvements can be made so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman