Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s response to her concerns about her neighbour’s building developments. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has failed to act to address the illegal building development carried out by her neighbour which has impacted negatively on her own property. She also complains about its handling of her complaints about this matter.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about building works undertaken by her neighbour to extend his property. She told the Council she considered the development to be illegal. However, the Council told her the work carried out fell under permitted development rights. These are rights which derive from a general planning permission granted not by the local authority but by the national Government and allow certain types of development to be carried out without the need for a planning application to be made to the local planning authority.
7. The Council explained the works carried out by her neighbour fell within the permitted development guidelines and so it had no grounds on which to base any enforcement action. With regards to her concerns about the neighbour’s patio, it advised Ms X to raise a further enforcement case about the matter so the Council could investigate it. It also said her claim that her neighbour had built on her property was a civil matter between neighbours and not one it would be involved in.
8. Ms X is clearly unhappy about the work undertaken by her neighbour. However, work which falls within permitted development rights is not “illegal” and the Council has explained it has no grounds on which to take enforcement action. Ms X’s neighbour subsequently received planning permission for additional works and work covered by this permission is not “illegal” either. Ms X was told to raise a further enforcement case about the patio although I understand from the Council that she did not do this.
9. There has been some delay by the Council in its handling of Ms X’s complaint, and Ms X says she did not receive communication from the Council which its records show was sent. However, these are not matters we will pursue in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
10. In responding to my draft decision Ms X has repeated her concerns and says her neighbour’s building works are damaging her property. However, it has been explained to her that this is a civil matter and she should seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman