Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly investigate the siting of a storage container at a property adjacent to his home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint about the siting of a storage container at a property adjacent to his home. He says he has had to put up with the view of what is an ugly structure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the siting of a storage container in the garden of a property adjacent to his.
7. The Council investigated his concerns and decided that the container was permitted development in connection with temporary internal works being carried out at the property and the enforcement case was closed at the time on this basis.
8. In response to my initial enquiries about the matter, the Council has confirmed that while the container is unlikely to be deemed permitted development on a permanent basis because of its location, the owner of the property has submitted a planning application for further works to the property and it is likely the container is being retained in anticipation of these works if planning permission is obtained. The Council has said that any consideration of enforcement action would be placed on hold while the current application is under consideration but that a re-assessment of harm caused by the container would be carried out if it was retained on a permanent basis following completion of any works at the property.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question the decisions they make if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
10. While Mr X may be frustrated by the presence of the container, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. It investigated Mr X’s concerns and decided the container fell under permitted development rights for which planning permission is not required. While the first lot of works at the property have been completed, a further application has been submitted and the Council, in accordance with normal procedures, will not consider further action until it has been determined.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is 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