Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to provide higher fencing to protect the privacy of her home from overlooking from a flood defence earthwork. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council approving a flood defence earthwork which allows walkers to look into her home. She says that other properties were given 7 foot-high fencing following consultation for the plans in 2018. She did not purchase her home until 2019 and had no opportunity to request additional fencing which was not requested by the previous owner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. Miss X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X bought her home in 2019. Shortly afterwards work started on an earthwork which is part of a flood defence scheme which was given planning approval in early 2018. The work was completed in 2020 and Miss X complained to the Council that people walking on the works could see into her home. Neighbouring properties had been provided with 7-foot high fencing to protect their privacy but Miss X’s home was not included.
5. The Council says consultation was carried out in 2017 and 2018 and the planning committee visited the site to assess the effect on residential amenity. The previous owner of Miss X’s home had an opportunity to comment on the proposals, but no objections were received. The committee concluded that the properties which were most affected should be provided with fencing, but Miss X’s home was set at a different position to the others and was less affected.
6. Miss X bought her home after the plans for the works had been approved. The searches at the time of purchase should have revealed the plans and their implications on the property. There is no requirement for the Council to reconsider the effect on her amenity now and she would need to consider a private means of providing additional screening fencing.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman