Summary: Mr X complains the Council has discriminated against him in its handling of matters relating to a building erected in a neighbour’s garden. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s investigation into a building erected in a neighbour’s garden. He says he has been treated differently to others, discriminated against and treated as a second-class citizen.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its responses to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council to complain about the presence and use of a building erected in a neighbour’s garden.
7. The Council investigated and told Mr X that the erection of the building fell within permitted development rights for which no planning permission is required. It said that while it considered its current use to be ancillary to the main dwelling and therefore acceptable, it would continue to review the matter with regard to Mr X’s claims that it was being used independently from the main property and so a breach of planning law.
8. The Council explained to Mr X that it would take enforcement action against a planning breach only when it was expedient and in the public interest to do so. It told Mr X that he could contact the Environment Agency with his concerns about pollution from the site.
9. Mr X claims the Council has discriminated against him, but I have seen no evidence to support this allegation. It is for the Council to decide whether the neighbour’s use of the building is a planning breach and, if so, whether it is expedient to take enforcement action against it. It is not our role to question the merits of this decision if the Council has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. Moreover, apart from the pollution issue for which Mr X has been directed to the Environment Agency, it is not clear what impact the neighbour’s building and its use is having on Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman