Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council considered the complainant’s concerns about fire risk from a hairdressing business at a neighbouring property. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council as its fire protection officer has no concerns about the business.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr C, has complained the Council will not take action to deal with his concerns about a building on his neighbour’s property. He says the use of the building as a hairdressing business is a fire hazard and so should be stopped. He also says it has affected the value of his home and created parking problems.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr C said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council. I have also seen information on the local district council’s website about a recent planning application. Mr C commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C raised concerns with the Council about a hairdressing business in a building in his neighbour’s garden. He says the use is unauthorised and presents a fire risk. He also raised other concerns about what were essentially planning issues which would be for the district council to deal with.
7. The Council sent a fire protection officer to view the site. The officer considered there was only an extremely low fire risk and the premises satisfied the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
8. The district council also considered the planning issues relating to the hairdressing business. This resulted in Mr C’s neighbour submitting a retrospective planning application to change the use of the building. Mr C commented on the application and raised all the issues of concern to him. The Council also sought the views of the local Fire and Rescue Service which raised no objections to the use. The district council has now granted planning permission for the use as a hairdressing business with conditions relating to the use of parking spaces.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has considered Mr C’s concerns about fire safety and is satisfied there is no risk. That is a decision for a professional fire safety officer to make and I have seen no evidence of fault in this.
10. Although Mr C has not complained to us about the district council, it has now addressed the planning issues. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how it has done this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman