Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement actions. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained about what happened when planning enforcement officers visited his home, their correspondence and the Council’s subsequent complaint handling. Mr B told us the Council put him under a considerable amount of stress by imposing an unreasonable time limit for carrying out work, despite being aware of his serious health issues.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided, his complaints to the Council and the Council’s responses. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained that the Council’s officers made unnecessary and inappropriate comments when visiting his home and in subsequent correspondence. He says the officers had an arrogant and insensitive attitude and they provided misleading information, in particular about the height of his fence.
5. The situation Mr B has described to us must have been stressful. When the Council replied to Mr B’s complaint it said the purpose of the officers’ visit was to look at the alleged breach of planning control and to find out as much as possible about the reasons why Mr B had done the work in question. That was not fault. It was important that the Council took a decision after considering all relevant matters. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to reach a view on the attitude of the officers during their visit.
6. There is nothing to suggest the relevant senior officer was misled by information provided by the officers who visited Mr B. The senior officer took account of photographs with annotated measurements and the contents of the planning enforcement file. The Council’s senior officer told Mr B the time the Council gave him to carry out the work was in accordance with guidance and to ensure it dealt with cases efficiently.
7. Mr B can submit a planning application if he wishes to seek planning consent for the work done at his property. It is not fault for the Council’s officers to offer their professional judgement on whether such an application might be successful. Potential applicants can then take officers’ advice into consideration when deciding whether to apply for planning permission.
8. In this case there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We would not investigate a complaint about the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the matters which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman