Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement matters in relation to a site opposite his home. We will not investigate the complaint because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation into more recent matters.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement matters relating to a site opposite his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its 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 a lack of planning enforcement in relation to a site opposite his home with matters dating back to 2014.
8. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 2 applies to past events as we would reasonably have expected Mr X to have complained to us about them sooner and so they fall outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
9. In relation to what is currently taking place at the site, a Council officer has considered matters but decided there is no evidence of a planning breach and so no evidence on which to base enforcement action.
10. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal and review the merits of the professional judgement of an officer.
11. Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaint handling but we will not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation into more recent matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman