Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case concerning an outbuilding erected by the complainant’s neighbour. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to take planning enforcement action against an outbuilding erected by his neighbour, and failed to adequately communicate with him about what was happening with the case.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We can 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council in May 2021 about an outbuilding erected by his neighbour. The Council confirmed planning permission was required, and said it had requested an application from the neighbour.
7. Mr X said he then had to repeatedly pursue the Council for updates about what was happening and, after involving his councillor, a planning application was submitted in February 2022. The application was invalid, and the Council explained to Mr X in mid-2022 that it had decided it was not expedient to pursue enforcement action.
8. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with that decision, but the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against it. Rather, we consider if there is any fault in the way the decision was made.
9. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary and government guidance says councils should act proportionately when considering whether further action is expedient. There is no expectation councils should automatically enforce against every planning breach.
10. Here, I understand the Council visited the neighbour to observe the outbuilding and also had photographs from Mr X. It was entitled to reach a professional judgement that the impact of the outbuilding was not significant enough to warrant any further enforcement action, even if Mr X disagrees with that judgement. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify the Ombudsman pursuing this part of the complaint.
11. And, whilst I appreciate there may have been delays in progressing the enforcement case between May 2021 and mid-2022, with associated time and effort spent by Mr X on seeking updates, the extent of any injustice is not so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing this matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman