Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application, or the subsequent enforcement case, involving a porch at a property next to the complainant. 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 to conclude that fault by the Council has affected the outcome or caused the complainant an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should take enforcement action against his neighbour’s porch extension as it overhangs across his boundary, and has caused damage to his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
4. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the neighbour’s planning application on the Council’s planning website.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council approved the neighbour’s planning application for the porch, and that it will not take any enforcement action or help him in relation to his Party Wall concerns and the damage to his property.
6. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decisions. Rather, we must consider whether any procedural fault in the Council’s handling of the planning application or the subsequent enforcement case is likely to have affected the outcome here. I find there is not enough evidence to suggest the alleged faults by the Council have influenced its decisions, so I do not consider Mr X has been caused an injustice as a result of its actions.
7. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• Land ownership is not a material consideration when a Council assesses the planning merits of a proposed development, so the existence of an overhang would not have had a bearing on the decision to grant planning permission.
• Although planning permission was granted for the porch, this does not override any land ownership rights held by Mr X. However, Party Wall matters, trespass, and alleged damage to property are private, civil issues for Mr X and his neighbour to resolve. The Council is not responsible for adjudicating in such cases.
• As the porch has been built in accordance with the approved plans, the Council has no power to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest that fault by the Council has affected the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman