Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to investigate his reports about an alleged planning breach since December 2021. We have found evidence of significant delay by the Council and have upheld the complaint. We have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay redress to Mr D and take action.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to investigate his reports about an alleged planning breach since December 2021. He says that commercial units near his home are in breach of planning conditions limiting waste collection times.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr D and Mrs D complained to the Council on 2 December 2021 about noise caused by waste collections made to three commercial units near their home. They said collections were happening outside the times permitted by planning conditions, sometimes occurring as early as 4.30 am. On 25 January 2022 the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team replied and closed the case. It said only one of the three units had planning conditions about waste. In April Mr D asked the Planning Enforcement Team to reconsider the case. He said the Council was incorrect because at least two of the units had planning conditions relating to waste collection times. The problem was ongoing with collections regularly happening before 6am. On 25 April the Council opened two new enforcement cases to investigate the alleged planning breaches.
7. On 10 February 2023 Mr D complained to the Council because it had failed to take any action about the ongoing planning breach. The Council replied on 22 February. Its records showed there had been “significant delay” and it had not reached a view on the enforcement case. It apologised. It undertook to review the case and provide an update within the next five weeks. On the same day the Council told the Planning Enforcement Officer assigned the case to carry out a site visit, write to the unit owners and update Mr D.
8. On 31 May Mr D chased up the Council. In June he complained to the Ombudsman, and we referred his case back to the Council for its final response. On 23 June the Council told Mr D it had a backlog of cases. The Officer who had been assigned the case was leaving and it would be reallocated. It apologised for the delay again. On 11 September I notified the Council about my investigation. The next day it reallocated the case to an Officer to consider.

What should have happened

9. When the Council receives a report about an alleged planning breach it should allocate the case to a Planning Enforcement Officer. That Officer can consider the relevant planning permissions in place and may carry out a site visit. Once the evidence is assessed the Officer should decide if enforcement action is required and notify the complainant about the decision reached. Whilst there are no set timeframes for this process the Ombudsman would expect a case to be progressed regularly.

Was there fault by the Council

10. There is clear fault by the Council.
11. Mr and Mrs D complained to the Council in December 2021. To date they are still waiting for the Council’s informed decision on their case. That is a delay of over 20 months which is unacceptable.
12. When the Council first considered the case in 2021 it failed to do so correctly. It wrongly stated only one of the units had planning conditions relating to waste collection. When Mr D pointed out this error in 2022 the Council opened new investigations but there is no evidence of any useful action being taken to gather evidence and assess it. To compound the fault the Council then acknowledged the delay when Mr D formally complained in 2023. It promised to update him within five weeks and failed to do so. In fact, the evidence shows that, again, no significant action was taken to progress the case. Mr D then had to make a further complaint and come to the Ombudsman before the Council reallocated the case in September.
13. The Council says it has a backlog of cases. Whilst I understand it is in a difficult position that cannot excuse the failure to correctly deal with Mr D’s cases over a 20 month period.

Did the fault cause an injustice

14. Mr D has been left for 20 months waiting for the Council to investigate his case. He was put to unnecessary time and trouble pursuing his complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

15. The Council has agreed to our recommendation that, in order to remedy the injustice to Mr D, it will:
• Pay Mr D £150 for time and trouble.
• Pay Mr D £200 for delay and uncertainty.
• Write to Mr D and set out who is dealing with his case and what will happen next.
• Have a senior officer oversee the case to ensure there is no further delay and Mr D is updated on any progress.
16. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman