Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his anti-social behaviour, planning enforcement, safeguarding and building safety complaints. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and part of his complaint is out of time.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council did not investigate his complaints about anti-social behaviour, safeguarding, planning enforcement and building safety.
2. Mr X said he and his mother experienced distress and that he has lost faith in the Council. He said he has had to follow up for an outcome for his complaints.
3. Mr X wants the Council to complete an independent review for safeguarding, planning enforcement, anti-social behaviour and building control. He asks for his complaint to be considered under the Councils two stage process, provide an apology and make improvements in the Council processes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X built an annex on his property, the annex was inspected by the Council and it met the necessary building regulations. After the annex was completed Mr X’s mother moved into it. Later Mr X’s neighbour installed a fence on their own land, outside the window of the annex.
10. Mr X complained to the Council that the fence impacted the safety and wellbeing of his mother. He said the fence blocked an escape route for the annex. Mr X told the Council the neighbour behaved in a hostile manner toward him. Mr X viewed the fence as a deliberate action that amounted to anti-social behaviour. He asked the Council to investigate his complaint about the fence structure.

Back to top

Building Control

11. In its response to Mr X the Council said the consideration of an annex escape route would have required different planning processes to the one Mr X had obtained. The Council did not view the window as a formal means of escape. The proposed escape route required use of the neighbouring property. The Council said Mr X would have needed permission of the landowner for it to be considered as an escape route. In any case the Council would not normally consider an exit via windows in an annex as a suitable escape route.
12. Matters relating to the exit route date back several years. The Ombudsman will not usually exercise discretion to investigate matters that took place more than 12 months prior to the complainant becoming aware of them. In this case, Mr X had the Council certify his annex in 2016. I have decided not to exercise discretion to look at matters relating to the annex escape before November 2024 because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have complained to us about the matter sooner.

Back to top

Planning Enforcement

13. The Council considered Mr X’s request for planning enforcement action to be carried out to remove the fence. The Council served an Enforcement Warning Notice for the fence. The fence was subsequently lowered and the Council decided it would not take further enforcement action because it would not be expedient to do so.
14. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should only happen when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all.
15. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, paragraph 60).
16. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions councils make with which complainants are unhappy. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
17. The Council visited the site and acknowledged that a breach had occurred but decided it was not expedient to take further enforcement action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and there is not enough evidence to suggest fault affected it.

Back to top

Safeguarding

18. Safeguarding requires the Council to follow a process which will consider and protect at risk individuals against neglect and abuse. Mr X said that his mother had a safeguarding need. When Mr X raised concerns about his mother, he called them safeguarding concerns.
19. With the context of the complaint history, it was reasonable that the Council considered Mr X’s safety concerns. The concerns would not fall into the scope for a safeguarding matter. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s safety concerns.

Back to top

Anti-Social Behaviour

20. The Council considered Mr X’s report of antisocial behaviour. It wrote to Mr X and said the matter did not meet the threshold for Council involvement, and it could not establish the intent of the fence instillation.
21. Mr X contacted the Council and asked it to reconsider its position on anti-social behaviour. The Council then sent his neighbour a letter about the matter. Due to data protection, the Council said it could not tell Mr X if the neighbour had responded.
22. It confirmed that his anti-social behaviour case remained open and told him to provide further evidence to the Council. We will not investigate this part of the complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council conducted its investigation into Mr X’santi-social behaviour complaints.
23. Mr X complained about how the Council responded to his complaints. It is not a good use of public money to investigate complaints about complaint procedures where we decide to not investigate the substantive issue.
24. We will not investigate this complaint, in part it is late and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Councils actions to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

25. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council managed his complaint. Part of the complaint is out of time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman