Hastings Borough Council (19 018 592)

Category : Planning > Enforcement

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 31 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B and Ms C complain about the Council’s response to a complaint they made concerning surface water coming from an adjacent property and damaging the highway. The Ombudsman does not propose to investigate the complaint because the matters complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now and an investigation would serve no useful purpose.

The complaint

  1. The complainants, who I refer to as Mr B and Ms C say the Council did not respond adequately to their contact about surface water coming from their neighbours’ property and causing damage. They say it has been left to them to pursue matters with the relevant authorities and that this should not have been the case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  2. 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 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

  1. In considering the complaint I spoke o Mr B and reviewed the information provided by the complainants and the Council. I gave the complainants the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. In May 2019 Mr B complained to the Council about a long-running problem he had had with surface water coming from a neighbouring property. He explained some of the history to the problem and that while he had been investigating it he had found a further problem in relation to a garage the neighbours had built some years previously which was adding to the problem. He said he had been directed to the County Council’s Highways Department but that he was still waiting for a substantive response.
  2. The Council responded at Stage 1 of its complaints procedure and addressed matters relating to the garage which had received planning permission in 2003. It noted its enforcement team had written to Mr B in October 2018 and confirmed that the garage is considered lawful and that it cannot take any enforcement action.
  3. Mr B asked to take his complaint to Stage 2 and said he was confused by the Council’s comments on the garage and its lawfulness and went on to refer to a rear extension and associated planning and building control problems with it.
  4. The Council responded by sympathising with Mr B’s position but repeating that given the lapse of time since the 2003 permission for the garage had been implemented, it was considered lawful and the Council could take no enforcement action.
  5. Dissatisfied that the water drainage problems remain unresolved, Mr B and Ms C submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman about the Council and the County Council.

Assessment

  1. Mr B’s and Ms C’s complaint about drainage problems affecting the highway is a matter for the County Council and not the Council and this matter is currently being looked into.
  2. While I understand Mr B and Ms C felt the Council did not help them and that it concentrated on the garage, and did not include a response about the rear extension, they understand that due to the passage of time there is no action the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team can take.
  3. Besides falling outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time, as highlighted in paragraph 2 above, there are no grounds which warrant exercising discretion because the Council has no grounds on which to take enforcement action in relation to planning matters.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matters complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now and an investigation would serve no useful purpose.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings