Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to an outbuilding built by neighbours. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to an outbuilding built by neighbours in the garden next to the property he owns. He says it is too large, in the wrong position and will be used for business purposes. He also complains about the Council’s lack of communication and delays in responding to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s neighbours built a new outbuilding in their garden. The Council determined that the development fell within permitted development rights and issued a Lawful Development Certificate for it.
8. Unhappy with the development and concerned that it had not met the required Building Regulations and would be used for business purposes, Mr X contacted the Council. The Council contacted the neighbours and requested a building regulations application. An officer subsequently visited the site and on inspection found the building to have been built to the approved plans and location and found no signs of a business being operated from it.
9. In responding to Mr X’s complaint about these matters, the Council did acknowledge some failings in its customer service dealings with him and it apologised for this.
10. While I understand Mr X is unhappy with the new building, I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been significant fault by the Council which warrants investigation. The building was deemed to be permissible under permitted development rights and the Council has found no evidence of a business being run from it.
11. The customer service problems experienced by Mr X are noted but these are not matters we will investigate when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman