The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters relating to the Council’s installation of a new road and new gates close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I call Mr X, says the new road the Council installed next to his home was placed on ground which was too high and so allows overlooking into his property and that new gates it installed are an eyesore and noisy when banging shut. He wants the Council to provide him with a higher fence and to adjust the gates.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, including film and photos and I considered the Council’s responses to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In response to Mr X’s concerns about dust from an untarmacked lane alongside his property, the Council tarmacked the lane. At the time the work was done, the Council says Mr X said he was happy with the work. However, a year later he contacted it to complain the ground level of the lane was too high so people could look over his fence and into his property. His complaint also covered new gates the Council had installed near his property.
The Council addressed the various concerns Mr X had raised and explained what action it was willing to take about the gates. However, it told Mr X it would not be increasing the height of his fence. It satisfied itself that the road work had been carried out satisfactorily and told Mr X it was not responsible for the security of private properties.
While I understand Mr X remains unhappy with the outcome of the Council’s consideration of his complaint, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of it by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman