Summary: the Council delayed investigating enforcement matters, delayed responding to Mr B’s communications and failed to tell Mr B when it decided there had been no enforcement breach. That caused Mr B frustration and led to him having to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to take action when he reported an enforcement issue; and
• failed to respond to his communications.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Mr B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Chronology of the main events

5. On 25 April 2018 Mr B contacted the Council as he was concerned a property close to his was using a flat roof as a terrace, in breach of planning permission. Mr B chased the Council for a response on 30 May and 16 June before putting in a complaint on 11 July.
6. The Council acknowledged the complaint on 11 July and told Mr B it would respond by 8 August. When the Council failed to respond Mr B chased the Council on 13 August.
7. The Council apologised for the delay and told Mr B it had asked the enforcement team to investigate his concerns.
8. The Council opened an enforcement record on 17 October and sent an acknowledgement to Mr B.
9. As Mr B had not heard anything further he contacted the Council again on 19 November. A Council enforcement officer visited the site the following day but could not gain access. The Council’s enforcement officer visited Mr B and subsequently emailed him to tell him the Council would provide an update as soon as access had been secured. The Council told Mr B that could take a few weeks.
10. I understand the Council’s enforcement officer met the project manager on site on 22 November. At that visit the officer identified nobody was living at the property and the works were not complete. The Council was therefore satisfied the first floor flat roof was not being used as a terrace.
11. Mr B chased the Council for an update on 15 January and 17 February 2019. There is no evidence the Council responded to those contacts.
12. The architect for the property contacted the Council in August and September 2019. The architect has confirmed the property is still unoccupied and unfinished and the flat roof is not being used as a terrace. There is no evidence the Council has contacted Mr B to tell him that.

Analysis

13. I am concerned about how the Council dealt with both Mr B’s report of a potential enforcement issue at a property close to his and the way in which the Council dealt with his correspondence. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B reported the potential planning breach on 25 April 2018. However, there is no evidence the Council opened an enforcement file until more than four months later in October 2018. That delay is fault. I am also concerned although the Council had established a breach of planning control had not taken place by November 2018 there is no evidence the Council communicated that to Mr B. That again is fault.
14. In addition, the Council delayed responding to various contacts from Mr B and at no time in response to those contacts did the Council explain it had not established a breach of planning control. That again is fault. I am particularly concerned to note that 17 months after Mr B reported an issue the Council has still not told him it has not established a breach of planning control. Those faults meant Mr B believed the Council was not taking his concerns seriously. It also meant Mr B had to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. To remedy that injustice I recommended the Council issue a further apology to Mr B and pay him £100. I also recommended the Council remind officers dealing with enforcement matters of the need to provide regular updates to those that have complained and to tell them when a decision has been reached. The Council should also remind officers of the timescales they should be working to when dealing with enforcement complaints. The Council has agreed to those recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• send a further apology to Mr B for the faults identified in this statement;
• pay Mr B £100; and
• send a memo to officers dealing with enforcement complaints to remind them of the timescales they should be working to and the need to keep those who have reported enforcement issues up-to-date with what is happening, including when decisions are made.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman