Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about noise disturbance and damage to her property caused by traffic going over speedbumps outside her home. There is insufficient evidence of fault and any injustice caused by early maintenance works is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. If Ms X considers the Council is liable for damage to her property, she can make a claim through the Council’s insurers or the courts.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to act following her reports of noise disturbance and damage to her property caused by traffic going over speedbumps outside her home. She also complains about poor complaints handling and that early morning maintenance work to replace a damaged speedbump disturbed her sleep. She wants the Council to relocate the speed bumps and compensate her for damage to her property.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council accepted that its communication and handling of her complaint had been below the expected standard and apologised to Ms X for this. It said it was in the process of updating its complaints handling procedures which would make it the process easier for complainants moving forward.
7. Although it acknowledged the traffic noise was causing her distress, it said it was not required to investigate, as its legal duty to investigate potential statutory nuisances excluded noise disturbance caused by traffic.
8. It also acknowledged that work to replace the speedbump had taken place during the early mornings one weekend, which had disrupted her sleep. It said the work has been scheduled at this time to minimise wider disruption. Although it acknowledged this might have caused her some disturbance, it said it was satisfied the early work was justified in the circumstances.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has apologised for its poor complaints handling and poor communication. It has explained how it is working to improve its complaints procedures moving forward. This is a suitable remedy for any distress caused.
10. The law does not require councils to investigate reports of statutory noise nuisance, when the noise is caused by general traffic. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this decision to warrant an investigation.
11. Although I acknowledge the early morning works caused Ms X some disturbance, we will not investigate this. The work was completed over one weekend, so I do not consider this to be a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.
12. Ms X also says that vibrations made by heavy traffic going over the speed bumps have caused damage to her property. We will not investigate this as we cannot determine liability for property damage. If Ms X consider the Council to be liable for damage to her property, it is open to her to make a claim through the Council’s insurance. If she is dissatisfied with the outcome, she can take the Council to court. Only a court can decide whether a Council is liable for damage and if so, whether it should pay Ms X compensation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and any injustice caused by the early maintenance works is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. If Ms X consider the Council to be liable for damage to her property, it is open to her to make a claim on the Council’s insurance or through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman