Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, brought by his partner Miss Y, about the Council’s response to a structure in his neighbour’s garden, and how it handled their complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Even if the Council were at fault, the matter does not cause Mr X and his family sufficient personal injustice to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ internal complaint processes where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a property where neighbours have installed in the garden two tall posts with a horizontal bar between, to do pull‑up exercises. Mr X lives with his partner Miss Y and their young son. Miss Y complains on Mr X’s behalf that the Council:
1. has failed to enforce against the neighbours’ garden structure;
2. failed to properly respond to the complaint.
2. Miss Y says when the neighbours use the pull-up bar, they face her and Mr X’s garden and can see over the fence. She says this causes loss of privacy when the family, including their young son, is in the garden. Miss Y says their son is anxious about being in the garden and the matter is affecting the family’s mental health. Miss Y says they feel unsafe and intimidated by the neighbours.
3. Mr X and Miss Y want the Council to ask the neighbours to lower the pull-up bar, move it closer to their own house so it does not overlook their or others’ properties, or put up a privacy screen.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with 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.

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

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Miss Y, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We can only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its officers’ decision-making process which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different outcome. So I have considered the process the Council followed here once it received Mr X’s report about the structure in the neighbours’ garden.
8. In response to the report, an enforcement officer visited the neighbouring property to see the structure. The Council decided the posts were too tall by about 20cm given its location near the boundary. Officers recognised this issue did not remove Mr X’s concern about the structure, which was about it allowing his neighbours to see into his garden while they used it. But officers determined there is no planning process they could use to restrict or control the neighbours from using the pull-up bar fixed between the posts for its intended purpose.
9. Officers gathered the appropriate details to inform their planning enforcement decision, that they could seek the posts to be lowered but could not require the pull-up bar to be removed. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in their decision‑making process here to allow us to go behind their decision and warrant us investigating. I recognise Mr X and Miss Y may disagree with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Even if there were fault by the Council in its planning enforcement decision, we will not investigate. I recognise Mr X and his family are distressed by the neighbours using the pull-up bar because it allows them to overlook their garden. But the neighbours were already able to see over the boundary into Mr X and Miss Y’s garden if they wished to, either from within their own garden, or from the upper floor windows of their house. The additional impact of the garden structure and its use by the neighbours on Mr X’s or his family’s privacy does not cause them such a significant personal injustice to justify an investigation.
11. Miss Y says the Council did not properly respond to their complaints. We do not investigate councils’ internal complaint processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning enforcement decision-making process to warrant an investigation; and
• even if there were fault by the Council in its planning enforcement decision, the additional impact of the garden structure and its use does not cause him or his family significant personal injustice justifying investigation;
• we do not investigate councils’ internal complaint processes where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman