Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing Mr X with an Enforcement Notice or about its communication with him about it. This is because Mr X had appeal rights against the Enforcement Notice to the Planning Inspector so placing this matter outside our jurisdiction and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its communications with Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I call Mr X, says the Council issued him with an Enforcement Notice but he is unable to appeal against it because the Council will not follow his Reasonable Adjustments and give the decision to him verbally. He says as he cannot read the Notice he does not know on what grounds he can appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

5. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint made by Mr X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained to the Council about the behaviour of officers who had attempted to visit to his property in connection with the safety of extensions he had built and the failure to obtain the necessary planning permissions. The Council found no evidence to support Mr X’s claims about the behaviour of the officers and did not uphold the complaint.
9. During the progression of his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure, the Council spoke with Mr X and discussed with him his communication needs and his request for verbal contact to explain any written communications.
10. In sending the written Stage 2 response the Council confirmed it had tried to speak to Mr X and had left an answerphone message asking him to call so it could arrange to discuss the communication over the phone or in person.
11. It did not accept his claim, made without any evidence, that he knew the building control officer and that the officer should therefore be removed from the case. It also found no evidence to support Mr X’s claim that it was complicit in responding to vexatious complaints made against him. It satisfied itself that it had met his communications needs by making every attempt to verbally discuss its written correspondence with him.
12. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to the Council’s actions in issuing Mr X with an Enforcement Notice. He had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which we would reasonably expect him to have used so placing the matter outside our jurisdiction and it will not be investigated.
13. With regard to the Council’s communications with Mr X and its consideration of his Reasonable Adjustments, the Council has said it has made every attempt to verbally discuss matters with him using phone calls, phone messages and personal visits. If there is any further action Mr X wants the Council to take to address his Reasonable Adjustments, he can raise this with the Council. Given its reasonable efforts, and that Mr X has been able to pursue matters using a solicitor, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation into this matter.
14. More recently, Mr X has said that he has damaged his property on the basis of incorrectly issued court orders. This is a new matter not covered by this complaint and it is open to Mr X to raise it as a new complaint directly with the Council for it to respond to before we will consider it.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had appeal rights against the Enforcement Notice to the Planning Inspector so placing this matter outside our jurisdiction and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its communications with Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman