Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters relating to his neighbour’s extension works which encroach over the boundary between their properties. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to take enforcement action against his neighbour’s building work which has encroached over the boundary between their properties and it has failed to properly deal with his complaint about the matter through its complaints procedure.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X’s next-door neighbour received planning permission from the Council to extend their property. When Mr X contacted the Council in March 2019 to raise his concerns that the neighbour had built over the boundary into his property, and about Party Wall Act matters, the Council wrote to tell him that from a planning perspective there was no action for it to take. It said it could not consider trespass or Party Wall issues and suggested he seek legal advice.
5. Mr X then made a formal complaint which the Council addressed at Stage 1 of its complaints procedure. While the Council’s position remained unchanged, it did explain in detail why this was the case and apologised that this had not been done in more detail previously. It advised Mr X of his right to take his complaint to Stage 2 and to complain to the Ombudsman.
6. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr X sought to take his complaint to Stage 2 and despite numerous attempts to do so the Council did not act upon his request.
7. As his complaint had not been dealt with properly, and he remained without the Stage 2 response, Mr X contacted us in February 2020. When we contacted the Council it told us that it had overlooked his requests due to a change in its complaint monitoring system and that the complaint had not completed its complaints process.
8. The Council was given the opportunity to respond at Stage 2 but did not do so.

Assessment

9. There has clearly been delay and a failure by the Council in properly dealing with Mr X’s complaint. It did not respond to his requests for a Stage 2 response for nearly a year and then delayed further following our involvement. To avoid further delay, I have now considered the complaint we see if it is one we can and should investigate.
10. While I understand Mr X has been caused frustration by the Council’s poor handling of his complaint, and that he has expended time and trouble and postage costs in pursuing matters, it did correctly set out its position in March 2019 when it told him that the matters about which he had complained were not matters the Council would deal with. It explained they were civil matters between him and his neighbour and suggested he seek legal advice. While the Council’s complaint handling failings are noted, I do not consider an investigation of this secondary issue is warranted.
11. Even if the Ombudsman were to investigate the substantive issue, I do not consider we could usefully add to what the Council told Mr X in March 2019. The Council’s delay in dealing with Mr X’s complaint is acknowledged but an investigation would not change the outcome for Mr X because if he wishes to resolve trespass or Party Wall issues he will need to use civil law procedures.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says his neighbour’s builders moved the boundary markers between their properties and that damage was caused to his drive, fences and side gate. However, these are civil law matters.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman