Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Enforcement


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 096)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 19-May-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's decision not to take planning enforcement action in relation to a building in their neighbour's garden, which they say affects their amenities. We ended our investigation as we are unlikely to be able to show that any potential fault made a difference to the Council's decision.

  • Cornwall Council (21 001 309)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 18-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about delays in handling an enforcement matter he raised with the Council. Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action once it did complete its investigation. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's decisions about how to close its enforcement cases. The Ombudsman does find fault with delays by the Council causing Mr X frustration and distress. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation to open a third enforcement case, apologise to Mr X and pay him £150.

  • East Hertfordshire District Council (21 001 721)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 15-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not take enforcement action against noise and odour from a takeaway below her flat for several years. She says the noise prevented her from sleeping and eventually meant she had to sell her flat and move. The Ombudsman finds fault in the delay in the Council acting on a statutory nuisance and in its handling of the case.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (20 014 236)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 05-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs D complained the Council, in its role as a Lead Flood Authority, failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour for works to his garden which impacted their underground drainage system. As a result, she said she experienced distress due to flooding of her garden and risk of flooding to her property. She also had financial costs to flood proof her property. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view not to take any formal action. We cannot therefore criticise the merit of its decision.

  • Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (21 003 402)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 03-May-2022

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mrs P's complaint about it failing to take enforcement action for a breach of planning consent against neighbours who erected fencing and gates round their properties. The Council responded to her reports, contacted the neighbours, and negotiated the submission of applications.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 064)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 02-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly investigated complaints of noise nuisance and breaches of planning control properly. The Council is at fault because it has not fully considered Mrs X's original noise nuisance complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, investigate Mrs X's noise nuisance complaint and pay her £50 for time and trouble.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 897)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council will not take enforcement action about a neighbour's high hedge, despite a remedial notice being in place. Mrs X said the hedge affects her enjoyment of her garden. She said it has caused her stress and she will have to pay again for the Council to investigate the high hedge. We do not find the Council at fault.

  • Leeds City Council (21 001 979)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to take planning enforcement action against his neighbour, who is alleged to be carrying out a business in breach of a Planning Enforcement Notice. Mr X said the neighbour's business causes noise and parking difficulties in the area. We found fault in the Council's explanation and application of data protection issues. This did not cause Mr X an injustice, but the Council accepted our recommendations to avoid recurrence of the fault in future.

  • Preston City Council (21 008 374)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to take enforcement action in relation to unlawful developments on land near his home. Mr X said that the unlawful uses affect his amenities. We did not investigate the complaint further because the planning decision making process is ongoing.

  • West Lindsey District Council (21 002 386)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 27-Apr-2022

    Summary: the complainant, Mr X, complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application or use its planning enforcement powers to control unauthorised development resulting in hazardous material spilling onto his land. The Council says it followed the correct procedures and considered all the information presented. We found the Council acted without fault.