The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning and environmental health issues relating to noise nuisance from dog kennels close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the lack of co-ordination between the Council’s Environmental Health (EH) Team and its Planning Team in relation to controlling noise nuisance from dog kennels close to his home. He says the EH Team should carry out its duties under sections 79 and 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and not rely on the involvement of residents like himself to take action.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to the part of Mr X’s complaint which concerns past planning decisions in relation to the dog kennels. As we would reasonably have expected Mr X to have complained to us about these matters sooner, they fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and will not be investigated.
With regard to the EH Team’s handling of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance, the Council has explained the restrictions on its ability to conduct periodic proactive monitoring of sites for noise nuisance and that it relies on co-operation from those who say they are affected by noise nuisance. While he may be disappointed with the decisions the Council has taken, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected them. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman