Summary: X complained about a letter they received from the Council which they say left them scared. We decided not to investigate this complaint further, as we were unlikely to find fault, recommend a remedy or reach any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. The person that complained to us will be referred to as X.
2. X complained about the tone of a letter the Council sent after X visited the home address of an officer. X says the letter left them scared.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• any fault has not caused a significant injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s response to the complaint. I considered correspondence between the parties.
6. I gave the Council and X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning enforcement powers

7. Councils have a range of options for formal planning enforcement action available to them, including:
• Planning Contravention Notices – to require information from the owner or occupier of land and provide an opportunity to rectify the alleged breach.
• Planning Enforcement Notices – where there is evidence of a breach, to identify it and require action to remedy it.
• Stop Notices - to prohibit activities without further delay where it is essential to safeguard the public.
• Breach of Condition Notices – to require compliance with the terms of planning conditions already determined necessary for approval of the development.
• Injunctions – by application to the High Court or County Court, the Council may seek an order to restrain an actual or expected breach of planning control.
8. However, as planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.

Permitted development

9. Not all development requires planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.

What happened

10. X complained to planning enforcement officers about development on their neighbour’s land. The Council’s enforcement officers visited the site and decided the development fell within permitted development limits, so needed no application for permission from the Council.
11. X complained about what had happened and received responses from the Council at stage 1 and 2 of its corporate complaint’s procedure. A senior manager responded to the stage 2 complaint to say X had not provided enough information to justify an investigation. This response was forwarded to X on behalf of the senior manager by another officer (Officer A).
12. The Council said that after X received its response, X found Officer A’s home address by carrying out an internet search. X visited Officer A’s home and left a card inviting them to call X. X also contacted Officer A’s partner at the partner’s work address. This individual did not work for the Council.
13. Officer A complained about X’s behaviour, and the senior manager wrote an email to X about what had happened. These events took place more than a year before X brought their complaint to the Ombudsman.
14. In the email to X, the senior manager said:
• Officer A had complained about X’s behaviour because X had visited Officer A’s home and left a card inviting them to call X;
• X had subsequently contacted Officer A’s partner, inviting them to call X;
• X’s behaviour was inappropriate, unnecessary and would not be tolerated by the Council;
• any such further direct contact with officers will be reported to the police;
• any further contact from X regarding their complaint should be made to the senior manager.
15. X said the Council’s version of events is untrue. X believes a cyber crime was committed and they have reported this to the police. X said the Council has not responded to the police enquiry.

My findings

16. We are not an appeal body. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
17. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
18. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
19. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others.
20. I should not investigate this complaint further, and my reasons are as follows:
• The events took place more than a year before X brought their compliant to our attention. X could have brought their complaint to our attention sooner.
• Before it made its planning enforcement decision, the Council considered the circumstances on site and its powers relating to permitted development regulations. This is the decision-making process we expect, and so further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault.
• I know X disagrees with the Council’s version of events, but I have seen no evidence that persuades me the Council’s response to X about visiting Officer A’s home was irrational or disproportionate. Further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault.
• There is no clear allegation of administrative fault here for me to investigate.
• I have seen no evidence of a significant injustice to X for which we could or should recommend a remedy.
• Matters relating to X’s allegation about cyber crime are a matter for the police to consider.

Final decision

21. I ended my investigation because it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for X or any other meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman