Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to address his complaint about the actions of a planning enforcement officer who visited his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as further investigation is unlikely to result in a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to investigate his complaint that:
• A planning enforcement officer arrived at his home without an appointment
• The officer was aggressive and uncontrolled and failed to provide legitimate identification

He says the Council breached article 8 of the Human Rights Act. This causes him to be on high alert against another planning enforcement visit. He wants a major transformation of the Council’s in-house customer care training.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X including his complaints to the Council and its responses.
4. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council wrote to Mr X advising it had received a report of a breach of planning control at his property. The report alleged that an extension and large shed had been built at his property without planning permission.
6. Mr X contacted the Council asking for more information about the allegation and objecting to the discourteous tone of the letter. He says the planning enforcement officer who sent the letter apologised for its tone and assured him that any visit to the property would be by appointment.
7. The following day, a different planning enforcement officer made an unarranged visit to Mr X’s home. Mr X says the officer was aggressive, threatening, abusive and uncontrolled. He said the officer failed to present acceptable identification and told Mr X he had powers of entry and to refuse access was unlawful.
8. Mr X also says the officer refused to leave despite asking him several times to do so, and only left when spoken to by the police when Mr X telephoned them.
9. Mr X complained to the Council. In its response the Council confirmed:
• The letter it sent Mr X was a standard letter advising recipients of the alternative options available to them
• Planning enforcement officers do have powers of entry
• The identification provided by the officer was genuine
• Pre-arranged appointments are not required under planning law
10. It also advised that it did not recognise the actions and attitude Mr X alleges were displayed by the officer and confirmed no such allegations had been made before.
11. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response, stating it had not addressed his complaints. The Council declined to make a further response, advising Mr X of his right to complain to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

12. Local planning authorities have a duty to investigate if they are informed there has been a breach of planning control. In this case, once the Council was informed of the breach it considered what, if anything should be done.
13. Mr X is unhappy with the tone and content of the Council’s letter. However, I have read the letter and have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council using a standard letter to tell him about the complaint it had received and the options available.
14. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the actions of the planning enforcement officer who visited his home unannounced. It is unfortunate the officer who visited his home had not noted the original officer’s agreement with Mr X to make an appointment before visiting. However, the Council is correct in that planning enforcement officers do have powers of entry and pre-arranged appointments are not required.
15. Mr X makes various allegations about the conduct of the officer, saying he was aggressive, abusive and uncontrolled. However, the Council says it does not recognise this in the officer and has not received such complaints before.
16. Mr X says other family members witnessed the event. He also says he has been advised the officer was a contractor used by the Council who is no longer associated with the Council. In these circumstances I consider that an investigation into the officer’s actions when he visited Mr X has little prospect of reaching an independent, conclusive finding.
17. On his claim the Council breached his human rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Mr X has the right to ask the court to consider the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman