Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council delayed in dealing with a breach of planning control by his neighbour. He says he had to follow strict guidelines but his neighbour has been given preferential treatment.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Relevant law and guidance requires local authorities to work with applicants/owners to address breaches of planning control and to take formal action only as a last resort.
6. The Council confirms the development carried out by Mr X’s neighbour is unacceptable and must be rectified but it is a technical breach rather than one which causes significant harm to Mr X or any other individual member of the public.
7. While Mr X is frustrated and annoyed that his neighbour has failed to follow the rules and that the Council has not taken formal action against them neither the breach nor the alleged delay by the Council has caused him significant injustice. We will not therefore investigate the matter further.
8. Mr X believes his neighbour has been given preferential treatment and that he has been discriminated against but I have seen no evidence to support his assertion. Mr X followed the proper process with his own development meaning the Council has had no need to take any action against him. Had he decided to carry out development without the Council’s approval there is nothing to suggest the Council would have treated him any differently to the way it has treated his neighbour.
9. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman