Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a bridge which causes noise nuisance when used. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prevent traffic noise from the use of a metal bridge near his home. He says loose fittings and traffic exceeding the weight limit causes disturbance to his enjoyment of his home.

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.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council has failed to stop a metal property-fabricated bridge near his home causing noise nuisance from traffic passing over its loose structure. He has made complaints in the past but in late 2023 he made a further complaint about the structure.
7. In response to his complaint the Council carried out some maintenance work to the bridge and replaced part of its structure. Mr X says this did not reduce the noise. The Council also says it placed traffic restriction signs and CCTV cameras on the bridge but these were unlawfully removed. It has no plans to replace the bridge which only carries a minor road with limited traffic use and would be unreasonably expensive for the usage.
8. The Council is the highway authority and it has a duty under the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highway for through use by traffic and pedestrians. The duty does not extend to neighbouring property or land and it only requires the Council to ensure the road is maintained for traffic access. Traffic noise and vibration are not covered by statutory nuisance provisions so Mr X could not take action or request the Council to take action under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a bridge which causes noise nuisance when used. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman