Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled planning enforcement matters and reports of anti social behaviour. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. The Police are better placed to investigate reports of criminal damage and harassment.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a property next to her home. She says it is illegally operating as a care home and the staff are behaving anti socially. She says it is affecting the enjoyment of her home and is negatively impacting her family who own the property. She wants the Council to take enforcement action against the property owners.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The amount of information provided by Ms X and the Council was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance. Ms X has commented in detail on these matters and the Council’s consideration of it. The focus for me is to consider whether we are likely to find fault in how the Council decided there was no planning breach and how it considered Ms X’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
8. Planning uses of land or ‘use classes’ are set out in regulations. They cover a range of typical uses, like residential, business, industrial and commercial. Planning permission is usually needed to change a use from one class to another. Whether a change of use has occurred is a matter of ‘fact and degree’ for the Council to decide.
9. Ms X lives in a property that is owned by her family members. She said the property next door is wrongly operating as a class c2 care home, when it is classified as a c3(b) dwelling house.
10. Councils have a range of options for formal planning enforcement action available to them, including Planning Contravention Notices (PCN)– to require information from the owner or occupier of land and provide an opportunity to rectify the alleged breach. The Council issued the property with this notice.
11. The Council considered the information the owners provided on the PCN, and considered legal advice when it decided the property was operating as a c3 which is an appropriate category for small community care homes. As the use of the property had not changed, the Council decided there had not been a planning breach. I am satisfied with the actions the Council took to consider whether there was a planning breach. We are unlikely to find fault in how it decided there was no breach of planning rules therefore I cannot criticise the outcome.
12. Ms X complained about the conduct and behaviour of staff at the property including that staff have harassed her and her family, caused criminal damage, blocked their driveway, caused noise issues, pest infestations and other ASB issues. Ms X says it has got worse over the years.
13. I have reviewed the actions the Council took which include:

• In 2025 officers wanted to assess the ASB concerns, but Ms X did not allow them into her home due to COVID-19 risks. The officers offered to take extra precautions to reduce those risks.
• It considered the parking problems but did not see evidence of any issues.
• The Council said it could progress with Ms X’s concerns about noise and light.
• It conducted a site visit and met with the property owners to address the issues.
• It tried to assess whether there was a statutory nuisance but was unable to because Ms X did not allow officers to enter her home.

14. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless if someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Ms X’s concerns. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s handling of the case and we will therefore not investigate.
15. The police are better placed to investigate criminal matters such as harassment and reports of criminal damage.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. The Police are better placed to investigate reports of criminal damage and harassment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman