The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council changing the hours of operation of one of its offices. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council changing the operation of a nearby council off from daytime working hours to out of hours operations. He says the operation of the office causes disturbance from staff movements and smoking breaks, together with office lighting.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the Council has changed the hours of operation of an office near his home and this has impacted on his quality of life. He says he can hear doors in the office and the movements of staff arriving and departing. In addition, he says he is disturbed by lighting on the building and smoke from staff taking breaks. He believes the usage may breach the use class of the premises in planning law.
The office is a small office and is not adjacent to Mr X’s home but is on the opposite side of a junction. There is no direct parking outside the office because there are double yellow line restrictions on the junction. The Council says it will seek to limit light being emitted from windows by installing blinds and it has limited the use of security lighting.
The change of hours was not a matter which changed the premises’ planning use category. Mr X is concerned with staff movements and smoking. This is not anything which breaches planning or statutory nuisance legislation. The office is small with limited staff and it is at a distance of about 20 metres from Mr X’s boundary. Smoking outdoors is not prohibited and this could occur from the public at anytime on the footway outside Mr X’s home.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council changing the hours of operation of one of its offices. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman