Summary: There was no substantive fault by the Council, in this complaint about a neighbour’s loft conversion. The Council did not give planning permission for the conversion, so it could not have consulted with the complainant. The trespass alleged by the complainant is a civil matter which does not involve the Council. The Council confused this complaint with another, which is fault, but it did not cause a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mr G, says the Council permitted the owners of a neighbouring house to undertake a loft conversion without consulting him. This led the neighbours and their contractors to trespass onto his rented property to erect scaffolding, and allowed them to see through the windows into his property, invading his privacy.
2. Mr G also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr G’s correspondence with the Council.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. In September and October 2019, Mr G contacted the Council. He complained his neighbours had erected scaffolding to convert their loft. There had been no consultation about this, the neighbour had not sought permission to enter his rented property to erect the scaffolding, and had therefore trespassed, and his privacy was now being breached.
8. Mr G says he referred this matter several times to the Council, and spoke to a number of different officers, each of whom said they had no record of his previous contacts and did not know what his complaint was. Eventually, the Council told Mr G he would need to accept the installation of noise-monitoring equipment on his property if he wished to pursue his complaint.
9. On 28 October, Mr G referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

10. In most cases, loft conversions carry permitted development rights. This means a developer does not need to seek planning permission for the work.
11. I have checked the Council’s online planning portal, but there is no record of an application relating to the property in question. The Council could not, therefore, have given permission for the work.
12. If the work has breached the permitted development limits, then Mr G’s neighbours should have sought planning permission. I have no reason to believe this is the case, but if so, this would now be an enforcement matter for the Council to investigate.
13. But, either way, the Council did not know about the work; and so it could not have consulted with Mr G, even if permission was necessary. There is no fault by the Council here.
14. Whatever the facts about the development, planning permission does not give a person the right to trespass on another property. Trespass is a civil matter, and the Council has no power to investigate it, nor to enforce against it.
15. If Mr G experiences ongoing problems with trespassing, which he cannot resolve himself, he may wish to involve his landlord in the matter. Alternatively, if Mr G feels threatened or harassed because of trespassing, this may be something the police will assist him with. But there is no obvious role for the Council here.
16. So there is no evidence of fault by the Council in any of the substantive matters Mr G has raised.
17. Mr G had previously complained to the Council, and the Ombudsman, about noise from building works on a different property. One aspect of that complaint was Mr G’s reluctance to allow noise-monitoring equipment to be installed on his property.
18. It appears, in responding to Mr G’s complaints about this matter, the Council has confused the two issues. It believed Mr G was still pursuing his earlier complaint, and did not appreciate his new complaint was about an entirely different property.
19. This is fault. However, I cannot see how better complaint handling would have benefitted Mr G here, as the Council could not have helped him with the new issues anyway. So I am satisfied this fault did not cause an injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which did not cause injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman