Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s shed. There is insufficient injustice and investigation is not likely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to take enforcement action to remove a wooden shed-like structure erected by his neighbour which he reported in 2020. Mr X says the sloping roof will cause water to drain onto his garden and the structure is a fire risk. Mr X says the Council originally decided the structure was a breach of permitted development rules but has changed its position. Mr X says the Council’s communication was poor and it failed to keep him informed about the enforcement case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. The information includes the complaint replies, Mr X’s comments and photographs of the shed.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
5. Investigation will not add to what the Council has said or achieve the outcome Mr X wants:
6. The Council has reviewed the case and decided there is no breach of the permitted development rules or any breach is marginal and it would not be expedient to enforce. The Council says the shed complies with the local plan and quotes national planning guidance it would not be proportionate to enforce where a breach is minor. Mr X’s photographs support this view. The shed roof slopes downwards and the highest point is the front part which faces the neighbour’s property.
7. Mr X’s photographs do not suggest the neighbour’s shed has a harmful impact on his property or amenity. Some water runoff from the roof may be possible but there is no evidence of a significant problem or that one has been reported to the Council.
8. There is insufficient injustice to investigate the Council’s communication. It has apologised for the lack of communication for some weeks following the case officer leaving the department.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s shed. There is insufficient injustice and investigation is not likely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman