Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action after her reports of a neighbour’s car sales. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process to warrant us investigating. A delay in the registration of Ms X’s complaint did not affect the enforcement decision and further investigation would not achieve a different outcome. We do not investigate council complaint‑handling or correspondence issues where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives next door to a property whose owner has sold cars from their address. She complains the Council:
1. has failed to take enforcement action against the neighbour’s car sales;
2. has made inconsistent decisions on which matters it will enforce;
3. did not put an appropriate salutation on its correspondence with her.
2. Ms X says the neighbour’s car sales cause residents noise nuisance, parking and traffic problems. She is annoyed and frustrated the issue has cost her time and caused her trouble, and that the Council has refused to investigate further. Ms X says she found the salutation on the correspondence to be highly offensive. She wants the Council to investigate the enforcement issue thoroughly, apologise for her inconvenience and change the salutation options on its website.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

4. 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

5. I considered information from Ms X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We may only go behind a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process which, but for that fault, a different outcome would have been reached. So I have considered the process the Council followed to reach its decision on the enforcement matter.
7. Ms X made various reports to the Council about her neighbour selling cars at their property. The core planning decision which fell to the Council was whether the information gathered and provided about the matter resulted in a material change of use of the property requiring permission or enforcement. It was not for the Council to act on any other basis, such as whether vehicles involved had valid tax, insurance or MOTs.
8. It was for officers to decide how to investigate the reports about the neighbour. They are entitled to determine the resources to be used for their investigation. In response to Ms X’s concerns, the Council’s officers considered the information she provided and also visited the site. They did not witness any car sales or activity related to those sales on either visit. Officers took the view that the information they had received did not amount to a change of planning use for the neighbour’s property.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here, allowing us to go behind its officers’ professional judgement, to warrant us investigating. I recognise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. There was some delay in the Council registering Ms X’s complaint. But this administrative issue did not in turn delay any officer action, because the Council’s decision was not to take enforcement or other action. While that delay was unfortunate, it did not affect the core enforcement investigation process and the outcome reached and further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.
11. I recognise Ms X wanted the Council to take further action on her reports because it had done so in another case she had heard of. But Officers are required to make decisions on the facts in each case. It is not fault for officers to enforce in one case and not the other, as they will involve different facts and circumstances. Officers are entitled to use their professional judgement to determine which cases require enforcement or other action and which do not.
12. In her complaint to the Council and initial complaint form to the Ombudsman, Ms X also complained about the Council’s use of a salutation on some of its correspondence which she found offensive. The Council’s complaints officers responded to the matter separately from the enforcement issue. Ms X’s second complaint form to the Ombudsman did not mention it. It appears the Council reply might have resolved this part of the complaint. In any event, we do not investigate council complaint-handling and correspondence in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint and contacts. 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

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision‑making process to warrant us investigating;
• a delay in the registration of the complaint did not affect the core enforcement decision and further investigation would not achieve a different outcome;
• we do not investigate council complaint-handling or correspondence issues where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman