Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • North East Derbyshire District Council (20 003 123)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 20-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide him with notice of the changes to the planning permission for the proposed properties next to his. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for not telling Mr X of changes to the planning permissions. Mr X also complained the Council failed to consider the impact on his amenity and privacy of a balcony proposed as part of the plans for the development. The Ombudsman found fault as the Council failed to consider the impact of the balcony on Mr X's privacy. The Council should offer to plant a tree on Mr X's land to act as a screen. The Council should also provide Mr X with an apology and a payment of £100 for the frustration and inconvenience caused.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (19 019 405)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 15-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr D's complaint about the way it dealt with his report of a neighbour building an extension higher than consent allowed. The Council took 4 months to correctly identify the full extent of the breach during which time it failed to provide satisfactory details about the measurements it took during its investigation. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 001 331)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 12-Feb-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault as it failed to take enforcement action to ensure compliance with planning conditions at the housing development where she lives. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

  • Shropshire Council (20 006 101)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 04-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs Z, a planning representative, complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against breaches of planning and building control by a developer. The Council was not at fault in how it handled the planning control matter. This is because it properly investigated the alleged breach and used its discretion to decide not to take formal enforcement action. However, the Council has acknowledged it did not investigate the alleged breach of building control. Nor did it respond to Mrs Z's complaint on this matter. This is fault. To remedy this the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs Z and provide a response regarding this matter.

  • Waverley Borough Council (20 003 436)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 02-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that the Council failed to properly consider their concerns regarding a neighbour's driveway which they said was causing dampness in their garage. They said the Council delayed in acting on their evidence, ignored their evidence and failed to communicate with them properly. They also complained that the Council directed them to obtain a surveyor's report at a cost of £660 to prove that the driveway was causing the problem. The Council accepts its communication was at fault and has offered £250 for Mr and Mrs B's time and trouble. We also found the Council at fault for suggesting Mr and Mrs B should obtain a professional report to decide the issue. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs B a total of £500.

  • West Suffolk Council (19 015 428)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 28-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains that there was fault and delay by the Council in investigating his complaint about the siting of a shipping container next to his back garden. He says the Council wrongly allowed it to remain in place for 23 months and that this affected his amenity and caused him considerable frustration and annoyance. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council responded to Mr D's concerns.

  • Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (20 003 541)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 27-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr D complained there was fault in the way the Authority dealt with a breach of planning permission. We find the Authority was not at fault.

  • Selby District Council (20 002 113)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 22-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to approve a housing development on land behind her home. We ended our investigation as we are unlikely to find fault or a significant injustice to Mrs X.

  • Canterbury City Council (19 014 218)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 22-Jan-2021

    Summary: We found avoidable delay by the Council in responding to continuing non-compliance with an enforcement notice affecting land near X's home. To put right the frustration the delay caused X, the Council agreed to decide what further enforcement action it would take and quickly act on that decision. The Council also agreed to tell X of its decision.

  • Lancashire County Council (20 004 064)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 22-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr B's complained the Council failed to control activity on land near his home. He said the site was being used to store scrap metal and process waste. Mr B complained about the noise and impact on his view and said it has negatively affected his mental health. We have not found fault with the Council.

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.