Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about scaffolding because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council approved several scaffolding licences between August 2022 and August 2023, but work did not start for eight months, and she feels the scaffolding was unsafe as it was not padded. She is also unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint.
2. Miss Y says this led to her having scaffolding outside her property for a year, causing her inconvenience and upset. She also felt fobbed off by the Council’s complaint response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. While Miss Y may feel strongly about having had scaffolding outside her home for a significant period, this is not a serious harm or distress, which would be sufficient to justify our use of public funds to investigate.
8. Further, the Council has reviewed its policy and has updated it to try to prevent the issue from happening again and it has apologised to Miss Y. As it has already taken steps to resolve the issue, it is unlikely further consideration of the complaint would lead to a different outcome. Consequently, we will not investigate.
9. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with the complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman