Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his concerns about his next-door neighbours’ use of their rear garden. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to enforce planning conditions which relate to the use of the property next door to his. He says the change of the garden surface from grass to gravel means vehicles using the area are causing noise and a nuisance. He also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint about this matter.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Some years ago, the Council granted planning permission for a change of use at the property next door to Mr X. The permission had a number of conditions attached to it.
8. Last year, Mr X contacted the Council, particularly concerned with a change from grass to gravel for the garden at the back of the next door property and its use for parking and unloading.
9. In addressing his complaint under its complaints process, the Council went over some of the property’s planning history and, in relation to the use of the rear garden for parking, it told him that having assessed the impacts of the area of hardstanding, it did not consider them to be of sufficient planning harm to justify the Council taking enforcement action. It did acknowledge and apologise for its delay in responding to his complaint.
10. It is not our role to question decisions a council makes if it follows the right steps and considers the relevant evidence and information. In this case the Council assessed the change to hardstanding but decided there were insufficient grounds to warrant enforcement action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and it merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman.
11. While I note Mr X’s dissatisfaction at the way his complaint was handled, we will not generally investigate such matters when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X set out the history of the next-door house and the conditions attached to the planning permission granted for it. He says his objection relates to the commercial vans and excessive number of cars that the presence of gravel allows. While this is noted, the Council has looked into Mr X’s concerns and considered whether there has been a change of use or planning breach against which it should take enforcement action. Having done so, it decided there is not and we cannot question the merits of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman