Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Authority took unjustified enforcement action against them in two courts in 2015. The complaint is made late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Authority, in 2015, took unjustified enforcement action regarding the refurbishment of their home which is a listed building. The Authority issued an injunction stopping building work and then prosecuted Mrs X for breach of planning conditions. Mr and Mrs X say a judge dismissed the prosecution because it was premature. They say the Authority caused 22 months of delay in completing the building work. It caused time, trouble, expense, and trauma to the family. They faced bankruptcy, loss of rental income, and Mrs X’s reputation was harmed. They want the Authority to pay their claim for costs of £124,932 and damages of £65,000. They say the Authority should review and improve its planning enforcement practices and give training to staff.
2. Mr and Mrs X complain the Authorities reply to their complaint of May 2018 and offer of £6000 in settlement is not acceptable. They say the judge who dealt with their costs application of 2016 criticised the Council for ‘stark impropriety’ and awarded full costs of £14,977.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr and Mrs X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. I have considered the complaint correspondence including the independent report of October 2018, commissioned by Dartmoor National Park Authority (the Authority), which considered the history.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr and Mrs X started the refurbishment work at their home in late 2014. The project was completed some three years later and they moved back into the property in August 2017. They say the Authority is responsible for much delay due to poor communication, practice failings such as delay in discharging planning conditions, failing to work collaboratively, and its legal actions.
8. In May 2015, the Authority applied to the County Court for an injunction to stop building work. The application was made at short notice without informing Mr and Mrs X. The Court lifted the injunction in November 2015. Mr and Mrs X are critical of the injunction saying it was based on a false claim that they had broken an agreement by continuing to do building work. They say the Authority gave inaccurate information to court.
9. In July 2015, the Authority started a prosecution of Mrs X for breach of a planning condition. The case was decided at Crown Court. The Authority dropped the prosecution in February 2016. Mrs X made an application for costs which was granted, they tell me, in September 2016.
10. In May 2018 Mr and Mrs X complained to the Authority which, in June, appointed an external investigator to review the case. On 7 November 2018 following receipt of the investigation report the Authority apologised for some practice failings and offered £6000. There is reference to the Authority having caused two months delay in the project. The letter advises Mr and Mrs X they can complain to this office.
11. In November 2018 Mr and Mrs X challenged the impartiality of the investigation report and the compensation offer. In March 2019 they met with the Authority and submitted a claim for costs and damages. On 29 March 2019, the investigating officer wrote to the Council with comments on Mr and Mrs X’s criticisms. He concluded Mr and Mrs X had failed to recognise their own failings and that the offer of compensation was fair. On 1 May 2019, the Authority wrote confirming the settlement offer which was time limited. In June 2019 Mr and Mrs X rejected the offer.
12. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman on 23 November 2020. They say they have complained late due to the covid pandemic.
13. Mr and Mrs X, replying to my draft decision, say the court awarded costs in September 2016. They delayed complaining to the Authority because they needed to complete the restoration project, deal with their business, and recover from the stresses. They say it took time to write the complaint which is complex. They had to recover before they could complain and open up old wounds. They say the Authority took 6 months to reply to the complaint and a further 7 months once they challenged the outcome. They have also explained the health of a relative deteriorated in Winter 2019 requiring input until July 2020. There was the impact of the covid crisis including educating children at home. They cannot afford to take legal action. They want the Ombudsman to investigate the inaccurate information/lies officers told a committee approving legal action.

Analysis

14. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
15. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction being made after the permitted period of 12 months (see paragraph 4 above). This includes events before November 2019, the handling of the enforcement case, and legal actions 2015-16. The complaint correspondence and offer of compensation 2018-19 are also affected.
16. I will not exercise discretion to investigate because:
17. Mr and Mrs X should have complained sooner. I have carefully considered their explanation of the delays (see paragraph 13). However, there are two periods of significant delay. After they moved back into their home in 2017 it took some 8 or 9 months to complain to the Authority. It took about 18 months to come to this office following the Authority concluding the complaint on 1 May 2019. The first 7 months of delay are not affected by the relative’s health or the later covid pandemic crisis.
18. We cannot investigate the evidence the Authority gave to a court or remedy costs relating to the court case (see paragraph 5).
19. Investigation is not likely to provide the type of compensation Mr and Mrs X seek. I would have expected them to consider any legal remedies if they wanted to pursue such a claim.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Authority took unjustified enforcement action against them in two courts in 2015. The complaint is made late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman