The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about alleged nuisance arising from the siting and operation of a telecoms mast. This is because it concerns matters we have investigated previously, matters which the Council is still investigating, a matter for which another agency is better placed, and a matter which does not represent a significant injustice to the complainant.
The complaint
I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
Mr D complains the Council has: failed to take action to tackle an alleged noise nuisance from equipment on the telecoms mast site, despite this being an agreed outcome from a previous investigation by the Ombudsman; declared him to be a vexatious complainant and refused to continue corresponding with him; refused to release information he requested under the Freedom of Information Act; discussed ‘off the record’ the possibility of purchasing his home; failed to prevent the site creating litter on his property; and refused to accept that it is an offence for vehicles on the site to be allowed to idle with their engines running.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended) We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I reviewed Mr D’s correspondence with the Council.
I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.
What I found
Next to Mr D’s house is a telecoms mast. The site is owned by the Council but leased to a third party, which is responsible for maintaining and operating the site.
Over a period of years Mr D has raised a series of complaints with the Council about the site. Mr D has also complained to the Ombudsman on four previous occasions. Three of his complaints concerned noise from equipment on the site, which he considers to be a nuisance, and the fourth concerned flakes of paint falling from the mast and onto his property, which he considers to be littering. We did not find fault by the Council during any of these investigations.
Mr D continued to correspond to the Council about his complaints, he says that, in June 2023, the Council agreed the operator was breaching the conditions of its lease with respect to noise-making equipment. The Council said it would serve a notice on the operator requiring it to rectify this.
After further correspondence, the Council wrote to Mr D in November saying it now considered him a vexatious complainant, under its local policy, due to the volume and tone of his emails. It said he must now only contact the Council’s complaints department, which would only act on his correspondence if it contained new information.
In January 2024 Mr D complained to the Ombudsman again, raising the points listed at paragraph 2. At that point the Council indicated to us it would not accept a formal complaint from Mr D because it was treating him as vexatious.
However, in April, the Council did accept a complaint from Mr D, concerning a delay in dealing with the breach of lease conditions, a council officer’s suggestion of buying his home, and its decision to treat him as vexatious. This complaint remains under investigation by the Council at the time of writing.
Analysis Having reviewed Mr D’s correspondence with the Council, I do not consider further investigation by the Ombudsman is appropriate at this time. Addressing his points of complaint in turn, this is because: we have already investigated his complaint that the Council does not consider the site is creating a statutory noise nuisance, and found no fault with this. Contrary to Mr D’s comment, we did not agree any remedy with the Council as a result of this investigation, and we do not re-investigate complaints we have already addressed. The ‘breach of lease’ matter is a new issue, which is slightly different, but forms part of Mr D’s current complaint to the Council. Although the Council originally indicated it would not accept this complaint, it now has done, and so investigation by us at this time would be premature; the Council’s decision to declare Mr D vexatious is also part the complaint which the Council has now accepted; Mr D has the right to complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he considers the Council has wrongly withheld information from him. The ICO has powers to require the Council to release information, which we do not, and so it is better placed to deal with such complaints; the alleged ‘off the record’ discussion by a council officer is also part of the complaint the Council has now accepted; we have already investigated a complaint about alleged littering from the site and we will not re-investigate this; and because I do not consider the ‘idling engines’ issue to represent any significant injustice to Mr D, which we would be likely to ask the Council to remedy, and so it would be disproportionate to begin an investigation about it. I should also note that this does not form part of any formal complaint Mr D has made to the Council, including the ongoing one.
If Mr D remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his new complaint, he may then raise a new complaint with the Ombudsman about this and we will consider whether there is anything which bears further investigation. However, at this time it is not appropriate for us to begin an investigation.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman