Summary: Mrs D says the Council should take enforcement action against a neighbour for unauthorised food preparation and storage. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council has failed to take enforcement action against a neighbour she alleges prepares and stores meat at a site near her home without the relevant permission. She says there is a breach of Planning Control alongside Environmental Health problems.
2. Mrs D has been complaining to the Council since at least 2018.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I am looking at events from September 2019 onwards. I explain below why I am not considering earlier events.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the information provided by Mrs D. I asked the Council questions and considered its response and evidence.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. In September and October 2019 Mrs D sent letters to the Council repeating earlier allegations against a neighbour. She said he was preparing, cooking and storing meat without the required authorisation. She also referred to the use of a storage container and said this was a breach of planning control. In October the Council wrote to Mrs D. It explained shipping containers were movable and therefore not considered as development. There had been no material change of use of the land or a breach of planning control.
10. At the start of November Environmental Health Officers made an unannounced site visit to the neighbour. They found no evidence of food preparation, cooking or storage and took supporting photographs. At the end of the month the Council received another complaint from Mrs D. The Council responded the next day. It explained Officers had visited the site and found no evidence to support her allegations. Because the Council had previously investigated the same issues and never found any evidence it would only investigate further if she supplied viable new evidence.
11. In May 2020 Mrs D repeated her allegation to the Council. She sent further letters in June alleging unauthorised change of use. The Council responded on 18 June. It would reassess the case and update her in due course. On 25 August the Council sent a substantive response to Mrs D. It said there was no evidence to support her allegations. It reiterated the shipping container did not require planning permission because its use was ancillary to the main dwelling. The case was closed.
12. Mrs D submitted another complaint in September. The Council replied in October. It stated that Officers had previously made unannounced visits and “consistently found no evidence” of unauthorised activity. There was no breach of planning control. Officers had asked for the evidence she claimed to hold but it was never provided. The Council said that unless Mrs D could provide “viable evidence” it would not investigate further.
13. In December Mrs D sent a further complaint about the same issues. In January 2021 the Council said that once Covid-19 restrictions lifted it would carry out another site visit.
14. Mrs D told the Council in March she had signed witness statements to support her case. She did not supply them to the Council. The Council asked her for copies or the contact details of the witnesses. Again, this was not provided to the Council. On 1 April Planning and Environmental Health Officers made an unannounced site visit. They found no evidence of food preparation/ cooking/ storage. There were also no planning control contraventions. The Council wrote to Mrs D on 12 April explaining its visit and it would not investigate further without supporting evidence being supplied.

What should have happened

15. When the Council’s Environmental Health Team receive a complaint about unauthorised food preparation or storage an Officer will investigate the complaint. They may carry out a site visit and take photographs. If there is no evidence to support the allegations the Council will close the case. It cannot take enforcement action in the absence of supporting evidence.
16. Similarly, when the Planning Team receive a complaint about a breach of planning control the case is assigned to an Officer to consider. The Officer may make a site visit to assess if there is evidence of a planning control breach. If no such breach is found the Council will close the case as it cannot take enforcement action.

Was there fault by the Council

17. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
18. Mrs D has made repeated complaints to the Council making the same allegations against a neighbour. The evidence shows the Council has considered those allegations in line with its procedures. Officers have made unannounced site visits and found no evidence to substantiate what Mrs D reports. I also note that Officers have asked Mrs D for her corroborating evidence, and this has not been provided. The Council has correctly advised her about planning control and why the shipping container is not a planning breach.
19. Mrs D clearly disagrees with the Council’s decision to not take enforcement action. The Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decisions in the absence of fault: that applies to this case.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

21. I have not looked at events prior to September 2019. Mrs D could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman