Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the investigation of a breach of planning permission at a neighbouring property causing distress and frustration. The Council allowed the investigation to drift and there were long periods of time when no action took place. While the Council has now decided enforcement action is not expedient, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise Mrs X’s frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained there were excessive delays by the Council in respect of an investigation into a breach of planning permission at a neighbouring property.
2. Mrs X says this caused distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X contacted the Council on 3 June 2021 about the neighbour operating a business from a residential property. She says the impact of this is that deliveries to the neighbour regularly block the shared access driveway.
7. The Council did not register the enforcement complaint until 3 September 2021. A chronology provided by the Council then shows no further action until March 2022 when it received an email from Mrs X chasing progress on the investigation. The Council then telephoned on 13 April to provide an update. The Council spoke to Mr X and gave the impression the Council was taking action. The conversation also discussed that a retrospective planning application would be submitted for the retention of a stable block at the rear of the neighbours’ property. This complaint is not concerned with matters relating to the stable block.
8. The Council carried out a site visit on 17 June 2022. The notes of the site visit show the officer inspected the room used for the business and discussed issues with the neighbour. The neighbour said that she had previously contacted the Council about moving the business to her house and the rates had been altered to reflect this. The neighbour also told the Council that there were typically two to three deliveries per day.
9. The Council contacted Mrs X by email on 25 July. The email explained an officer had visited the site and met with the neighbour who had been co-operative. It said it was reviewing the information and would update Mrs X by 26 August.
10. The Council next contacted Mrs X on 5 September. It said it was expecting a retrospective application for the stable block and that the complaint about the operation of the business remained under investigation and it would update her again by 30 September.
11. The chronology of actions provided by the Council indicates it sent Mrs X an email on 23 March closing the enforcement investigation. I am aware that in the period between 5 September and 23 March, Mrs X had contacted the Council seeking an update on several occasions. The Council agreed to an online meeting with Mrs X to discuss the situation but the meetings were cancelled by Mrs X and never took place.
12. The Council’s letter of 23 March said it was common ground that a business was operating from the neighbouring property. It said the activity was predominantly confined to one room where office based administration is undertaken by the property owner assisted by two members of staff. It said the principal impact of the operation of the business from a planning perspective is the delivery and collection of stock. It said this results in up to four vehicles visiting per day during the week. It said that any obstruction of the shared driveway is essentially a civil matter between the neighbours.
13. The Council took the view the level and nature of the activity in connection with the operation of the business had not resulted in a significant change in the definable character of the property as a dwellinghouse and so did not amount to a material change of use. It said it could not reasonably take enforcement action in these circumstances and so closed the investigation.

Analysis

14. Mrs X complains of delay by the Council in respect of her enforcement complaint. I note this investigation was concluded in March 2023 and the Council has explained its decision not to take further action. I am satisfied the Council has provided a proper explanation of its reasons for not taking formal enforcement action and closing the case. This is a decision it is entitled to take and I will not criticise it.
15. However, I do consider there was delay in this case which is fault. Mrs X originally raised the issue in June 2021 and it was not concluded until March 2023, some 21 months later. In response to my enquiries about the reason for the delay in this case, the Council says the COVID-19 pandemic led to a change in working practices and officers have faced an increased workload. It says at the time there were three officers on maternity leave and one on long-term sickness absence.
16. In its complaint response to Mrs X, the Council said that this case required the obtaining, collating and detailed analysis of evidence that required engagement with multiple site owners. I asked the Council to evidence this and it failed to provided anything substantive. I consider the above statement was disingenuous and not a true reflection of what happened. It took the Council over a year to carry out a site visit and there is nothing to suggest any further evidence was gathered after this visit and that the Council had all the information it needed to take a view.
17. The evidence provided shows the Council allowed this case to drift and failed to monitor the time that had passed. There is also evidence that Mrs X regularly chased the Council for updates as it failed to keep her informed and at times missed timescales it set for responses. This caused frustration for Mrs X and put her to avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Back to top

Agreed action

18. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X as a result of the fault identified in this case, the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Apologise to Mrs X;
• Make Mrs X a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise her frustration and time and trouble; and
• Carry out a review of procedures to ensure reported breaches of planning control are not allowed to drift without action and that regular updates are provided.
19. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman