Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. If Mr X disputes the Council’s view that his development requires planning permission it would be reasonable for him to await an enforcement notice and appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the conduct of two planning enforcement officers acting for the Council. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the matter.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council investigated a possible breach of planning control by Mr X at his property in early-mid 2019. Mr X is not happy about the way the Council’s officers handled the matter. He says they lied to him, misled him and abused their power. He disputes the Council’s suggestion that his development requires planning permission and believes he has been treated unfairly. He complained to the Council but was not happy with the way the Council handled his complaint.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We look at the actions of the Council as a whole; we do not find fault with individual council officers and we have no power to recommend disciplinary action.
8. Mr X’s complaint stems from the Council’s planning enforcement investigation and the injustice he claims is the result of its decision that his development requires planning permission. If Mr X disputes the Council’s view he may decline to apply for planning permission and appeal against any enforcement notice it issues him.
9. His complaint about the actions of the officers is not sufficiently separable and does not cause him significant enough injustice to investigate these points in isolation. And while he is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaint it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims results from the Council’s planning enforcement investigation and if he disputes its findings he may decline to apply for planning permission and appeal against any enforcement notice it issues him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman