Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take action against neighbours who have extended their garden boundaries. We will not investigate the complaint because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and an investigation of more recent events is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says he has been complaining since 2007 about neighbours who have extended their garden boundaries out into an access track to the rear of their properties without obtaining planning permission. He says he has spent a considerable sum of money preparing his land for development and obtaining planning permission and now his plans will be hampered due to reduced track access. He seeks compensation for this. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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, 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

5. 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

6. In 2007 Mr X complained to the Council about neighbours extending their garden boundaries out into a rear access track behind his property. He complained again about this in 2019 when more neighbours did the same. In response to both complaints, the Council explained while there had been a planning breach, and that planning permission should have been sought by the neighbours, it had decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action because permission would likely be granted should an application be made.
7. In July 2020, Mr X complained again about other neighbours extending their garden boundary out into the track. He said he had had to pay for planning and development costs for his own planning application and that now the commercial vehicles he wanted to use for his development could not use the reduced width of the access track. He also complained that he had found it difficult to contact and communicate with the Council and objected to a planning officer saying he had been rude in his communications.
8. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint by explaining its position on why it had decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action. It apologised for the difficulties Mr X had had in communicating with it and acknowledged that the officer’s email about comments they had found inappropriate could have been better expressed. However, it confirmed it would not be providing any financial remedy.
9. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

10. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Mr X’s earlier complaints about garden extensions as they relate to matters too far in the past to be investigated now.
11. With regard to his 2020 complaint, the Council has explained why it will not be taking enforcement action and we cannot review the merits of this decision. While the Council delayed in responding to him and apologised for the problems he had in communicating with it, these are not matters we will investigate when we are not investigating the substantive matter.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X has set out the difficulties he has had in trying to communicate with the Council over the last 10 months. While these difficulties are noted, this period covers the impact of the COVID pandemic and, moreover, an investigation of them would not lead to the outcome Mr X seeks for his complaint. He also says his complaint has yet to be resolved because delivery contractors refuse to travel down the access track but this is a matter for Mr X to resolve and not the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and an investigation of more recent events is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman