Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, and any injustice arising from the time taken to progress the case is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council wasted seven months of her time whilst it considered a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property. She thinks the Council should have fined the neighbour and taken legal action.

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 an investigation if we decide, for example:

• 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. And 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 considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including the complaint correspondence.
5. I considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X contacted the Council in July 2020 about alterations that had been made to her neighbour’s existing, ‘lean-to’ side extension. Within a week, the Council informed Ms X it had visited the site and would write to the neighbour.
7. Ms X sought updates in late-August and early-September 2020. The Council explained it was waiting to hear from the neighbour and would contact her when it had further information. Ms X again sought an update in late-October 2020, and the Council informed her of its ongoing discussions with the neighbour.
8. Ms X asked for further updates in January 2021, and I understand the Council called her in response. Ms X contacted the Council on two more occasions in March 2021 and it replied in early-April 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding and explained why it had reached the decision not to take enforcement action.
9. I appreciate Ms X is unhappy with the length of time it took the Council to complete its assessment of the breach of planning control, and with its eventual decision not to pursue enforcement action.
10. But Councils have discretion to decide whether to take such action, and government guidance says planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s judgement, unless there is evidence of fault in the way its decision is made. The Council has visited the site and explained the planning considerations which informed its decision not to take further action. In my view, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the Council’s judgement was affected by fault, so an investigation by the Ombudsman is not justified.
11. Furthermore, having regard to the relatively minor nature of the planning breach and that the Council has already apologised to Ms X, I am not persuaded any residual injustice is so significant as to warrant our continued involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of

fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to take enforcement action, and any delays in progressing the case have not caused her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman