Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in enforcing against an unauthorised rear extension to a Grade II Listed property on the road where he lives. The matter does not cause Mr X sufficient personal injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. An investigation could not achieve any further worthwhile outcomes for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a flat near a house on the same road. Both properties are Grade II Listed and in a Conservation Area. The house owner added a rear extension in 2014 without the appropriate planning and Listed Building consents.
2. Mr X complains:
1. the Council has delayed in taking enforcement action to get the extension removed;
2. officers have lied to him during the matter.
3. Mr X says that as a former councillor he is horrified by the delays in taking enforcement action. He wants the Council to carry out the enforcement action and require the owner to demolish the extension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed the development location using online maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council served a Listed Building Enforcement Notice on the house’s owner in 2014. Soon after the extension was built. Mr X complained in late 2019 that the Council had not enforced the removal of the extension, which he said they have had the power to do since 2017. The Council accepted there have been delays in the enforcement process. In response to the complaint, officers advised they would be taking legal action to seek the extension’s removal.
7. There have been delays in the enforcement process here. But for the Ombudsman to investigate a complaint, it is not sufficient for him to identify fault by a council. He must also consider whether the fault has then directly led to a significant personal injustice to the person complaining.
8. I do not consider this matter has caused a significant personal injustice to Mr X. I say this because the presence of the extension does not cause amenity harm to Mr X’s property. The block of flats in which Mr X lives does not share a boundary with the extended house. The extension’s location and scale would not have a significant negative impact on Mr X’s flat’s amenity.
9. Mr X says the extension has an impact on his property’s amenity because he can see it from the flats’ gardens and he does not like the look of it. I realise the presence and sight of the extension annoys Mr X. But I do not consider having a view of it from the flat’s gardens is sufficient impact on his property to cause him a significant personal injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.
10. I recognise Mr X has a sense of outrage that the development has remained in the Conservation Area for six years. He says the extension causes a wider public injustice because it is visible to other residents, and those visiting a nearby public building. Any concerns of others are not Mr X’s personal injustice. The extension is to the rear of the house so is not visible by general users of the area. The impact on the street scene does not give grounds for an Ombudsman investigation.
11. In its responses to Mr X, the Council has expressed its intention to pursue its enforcement action to seek removal of the extension. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to any different outcome. He could not achieve more action on the core enforcement matter than the Council is already taking.
12. Mr X considers officers lied to him about its enforcement process as it has gone on. Generally speaking, enforcement is often complicated and the process may take various routes. Actions by an authority can be affected or prevented by the actions of the subject of the enforcement. During the process, officers might give information in good faith about the expected next step in the process, only for that step not to occur.
13. In any event, the Council apologised to Mr X for any misinformation he received from officers here. I consider that would be the remedy for injustice the Ombudsman would have sought here if he had investigated. So there is no further outcome for the Ombudsman to pursue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the enforcement process to warrant an Ombudsman investigation;
• the Ombudsman could not achieve any additional beneficial outcome for Mr X by investigating the enforcement matter now;
• the Council has apologised for any misinformation officers gave Mr X, which is the outcome the Ombudsman would have sought had he investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman