Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over a nearby development which he says does not comply with the approved plans. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council refusing to take enforcement action against a developer who has completed a development which does not comply with the approved plans. He says his residential amenity has been affected and the value of his property may be reduced.

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)

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says a neighbouring development has been completed bigger than the approved plans and some features do not match the plans on which neighbours were asked to comment on.
6. The Council investigated Mr X’s report of planning breaches and measured the construction against the plans. It concluded that some of the work does not match the drawings with the plans, but they do match the measurements. A window shown on the plans is of a different type and the developer has given an undertaking to change it.
7. The Council invited the developer to submit retrospective plans to match the drawings, but no plans were submitted. The Council concluded that the changes in dimensions are between 0.3 and 0.4 m and that it would not be sufficient to refuse any amended plans. Mr X disputes this figure and says the discrepancy could be as far as 1.5 metres from the building line according to which drawings are considered.
8. Planning enforcement action is a discretionary power and Government guidance says that councils should use the power proportionately to any breach. In this case the Council decided that it was not expedient to take action over minor differences between some parts of the approved plans and what has been built.
9. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman