Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to plant up an area which is subject to persistent flytipping or take action in relation to her neighbour’s boundary wall. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision not to plant up an area on her road which is subject to persistent flytipping. She also complains about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action in relation to a neighbour’s boundary wall which she says is unsafe and is too high.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. Mrs X complained to the Council about the matters set out in paragraph 1, above.
8. The Council told Mrs X it would not carry out planting at the location because there would be a cost to the public purse and because any planting, once established, could restrict the view from exiting the road as it is at the entrance of the road.
9. In response to Mrs X’s concerns about the neighbour’s wall, the Council found the wall had been in place for more than 4 years, and so it is considered to be immune from enforcement action in line with section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This states that where there has been a breach of planning control no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the structure was built. It also confirmed the wall was not considered to be in imminent danger of collapsing and that consent under Building Regulations was not required.
10. Mrs X does not believe the Council’s response on these matters is true or correct.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decisions, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has considered Mrs X’s requests and on both matters has clearly explained why it has decided not to take action. These are decisions the Council is entitled to make. We are 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 whether there was fault in the way the Council made its decisions. If, as here, we decide there was no fault in how it did so we cannot question whether it should have reached a different outcome regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman