Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of planning breaches. This is 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, complains about the Council’s response to his reports of work starting at a development site close to his home prior to the permitted work hours. He says he has been caused distress and disruption and lost time pursuing matters.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about its response to reports he had made of work starting before 7.30am at a development site close to his home, contrary to the work hours set out in a condition attached to the planning permission.
8. In responding to the complaint, the Council noted that an officer had visited the site and spoken to the site manager to remind the manager of the need to comply strictly with the permitted work hours condition. It also noted Mr X had been advised to complete monitoring forms for any further breaches he wanted to report. It explained to Mr X why his video of work starting at a time before the permitted hours would not be sufficient to base formal enforcement action on. It concluded that proper consideration had been given to his case and it did not uphold his complaint.
9. While the outcome of the Council’s investigation is disappointing for Mr X, the Council is under no obligation to take enforcement action for every planning breach. It will decide whether it is expedient to do so and it is not our role to question the professional judgement of officers or the merits of the decisions they make.
10. Mr X has also complained about earlier reports of breaches he had made and particularly the behaviour of an officer towards him. However, the restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 applies to these earlier matters. As we would reasonably have expected Mr X to have complained to us about them sooner, these matters fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and will not be investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint 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