Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a planning enforcement investigation it undertook. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation and the Council has already advised Mr B on how to achieve the outcome he seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council failed to properly consider matters relating to a planning enforcement investigation it undertook concerning land on which he erected a fence. He feels he has been accused of acting illegally when he knows he did not enclose amenity land with the fence as the land is his.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Acting on information it had received from a third party, the Council investigated a potential planning breach concerning the enclosure of amenity land by a fence erected by Mr B.
5. As a result of its investigation, the Council decided the fence to the rear of Mr B’s property had been moved back to enclose amenity land into a residential garden. It told Mr B of its findings and that it had identified a planning breach.
6. However, following additional information provided by Mr B, the Council then decided there was sufficient evidence to show the land had been enclosed for over 10 years. It advised Mr B of the option of applying for adverse possession and a Certificate of Lawfulness and told him that there was no information available to the Council to dispute such an application as it accepted the fence had been in place for many years without complaint. It explained it would not be taking any enforcement action and that it would update its records to reflect its decision.
7. In responding to Mr B’s complaint that it had besmirched his good reputation by implying he had stolen the land, the Council assured him that it had not made such accusations and its records did not reflect this. It restated his options for obtaining formal recognition of the status of the land and fence and apologised for any inconvenience caused to him.

Assessment

8. Mr B has been upset by the action taken by the Council, and by its refusal to properly consider information he has which he says supports his view of his long-standing ownership of the land in question. However, the Council has properly advised Mr B of his options to formalise matters and it is open to Mr B to decide whether to do so.
9. An investigation by the Ombudsman cannot provide the outcome which a successful adverse possession or Certificate of Lawfulness application can provide and there are insufficient grounds to warrant further consideration of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation and the Council has already advised Mr B on how to achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman