Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to a development next to Dr X’s property. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has reached decisions about planning matters. The Council has also apologised for delays in dealing with Dr X’s complaints about planning enforcement and this is a suitable remedy. Dr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s actions in relation to building regulation compliance.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains that her property has been damaged due to work taking place on a development next to her home. Dr X says there have been significant delays in the Council dealing with her concerns about the development.
2. Dr X says the work to the neighbouring development has caused damage to her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development. The Council’s decision to grant planning permission does not give a landowner or developer permission to start building work. Landowners and developers still need to comply with building regulations and resolve any issues regarding shared boundaries and party walls. The Council is not responsible for managing any disputes regarding work to a boundary or party wall. These are private legal matters between neighbouring landowners.
7. The Council has accepted that there were delays in keeping Dr X updated when it was investigating possible breaches of planning control at the neighbouring development. The Council found there was no breach of planning control and that the development had been built in line with approved plans. The Council apologised for delays investigating the issues Dr X raised.
8. There is no evidence fault in the Council’s decision that the development had been built in accordance with approved plans. The Council visited the site and checked relevant plans. The Council has apologised for delays in its investigation and this is a suitable remedy.
9. The Council had not issued a completion certificate approving building regulations compliance at the development when it responded to Dr X’s complaint. However responsibility for building regulation compliance and quality of any work lies with the person carrying out the work and owner of the property. The purpose of building regulations is to ensure buildings do not pose a risk to the public. The Council would not be responsible for any damage caused to Dr X’s property as a result of building work. Therefore we cannot say that Dr X has been caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the neighbouring development. The Council has also accepted there were delay investigating compliance with planning permission and has apoligised. This is a suitable remedy. The Council’s actions in relation to building regulation compliance have not caused Dr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman