Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s delay in addressing a neighbour’s planning breach. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and while there has been some delay, neither it nor the injustice caused to Ms X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. On behalf of the complainant, Ms X, her representative, Mr Z, complains about the Council’s handling of his reports of Ms X’s neighbour’s planning breach and about the way his complaint about this matter was handled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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:

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

3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 Mr Z and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr Z the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Last year, Mr Z complained to the Council about building development taking place in Ms X’s neighbour’s garden.
8. The Council visited the site and decided there had been a planning breach. It has invited the neighbour to submit a planning application to regularise what has been built. In responding to Mr Z’s complaint, the Council said there is no evidence the new building is to be used for independent living but that it would be keeping the case open in the coming weeks.
9. There was delay by the Council in responding to the report of a planning breach and to Mr Z’s complaint about its handling of this matter. However, while this fault is noted, the Council apologised and I do not consider there are sufficient grounds to warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. The Council visited the site, has taken appropriate action and kept the case open so it can monitor what is taking place. Mr Z’s concerns about recent developments and what he considers to be further evidence that the building will be used as an independent living unit can be reported to the Council for its consideration. The decision on this issue is for the Council to make having considered the relevant evidence and it is not our role to review its merits.
11. I note Mr Z’s comment that Ms X has been caused injustice due to the length of time these matters have been ongoing. However, while there has been delay, an investigation would not significantly add to the Council’s own investigation and I do not consider the fault, or the injustice caused by it, is sufficient to warrant an investigation.
12. In responding to my draft decision, Mr Z says the delay by the Council was significant and that he is concerned if he reports any further evidence/information to the Council he will be ignored. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while the delay has been noted, it has not caused injustice to Ms X sufficient to warrant an investigation. The Council has now taken appropriate action and is monitoring the case and Mr Z can report any new evidence he has in the normal way.
13. Mr Z also refers to his injustice and his concerns about wider failings of the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team for all Council residents. However, the complaint is Ms X’s and while Mr Z has taken time and trouble to pursue matters on her behalf, it is not his injustice we consider. Mr X says there is no effective planning enforcement but Ms X’s case has been dealt with by the Council and action taken.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and while there has been some delay, neither it nor the injustice caused is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman