Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a building control matter as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. We will not investigate Mr X’s planning enforcement complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s approach to the issue or that we could say it caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to enforce the Building Regulations, ignored his concerns about encroachment and breaches of the Party Wall Act 1996 by his neighbours and has not properly investigated his planning enforcement concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Building Regulations set standards for the design and construction of buildings to ensure the health and safety of people in and about those buildings.
6. The Council has considered Mr X’s concerns about possible breaches of the Building Regulations but explained it cannot make his neighbour carry out additional works or alter the works which have already been carried out as they are exempt from the Regulations. It has also explained that encroachment and breaches of the Party Wall Act 1996 are private civil matters and therefore not something it can become involved with. I have seen nothing to show the Council’s approach to these issues is flawed and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is to take action for breaches of the legislation. If Mr X wishes to pursue them further he may wish to obtain independent legal advice about his options.
7. The Council has also considered Mr X’s reports of unauthorised development at his neighbour’s property and explained the reasons it will not take these forward at this time. It has determined the aspects of the development which Mr X is most concerned about do not require planning permission and in one case has been there for more than four years, meaning it would be immune from enforcement action even if it amounted to a breach of planning control. The Council’s decision on these issues is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no basis to question it.
8. The Council confirms one final part of the development does require planning permission and it has written to Mr X’s neighbour asking them to submit an application. This part of the development is not the main cause of the injustice Mr X claims but if he is unhappy about it he may comment on his neighbour’s application once it has been registered and raise any objections he has to it. If the Council fails to properly consider Mr X’s comments he may raise a new complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions have caused Mr X significant injustice. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman