Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to take enforcement action over an outbuilding on neighbouring land. Further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault or a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly classified an outbuilding on neighbouring land as permitted development and refused to take enforcement action.
2. He says that as a result, he was caused stress and financial injustice because he had to replaster and paint the damp areas.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council and said the building on his neighbour’s land was too large and too close to his boundary for permitted development. Mr X sent the Council a photograph to support his complaint. Mr X said the outbuilding was also encroaching onto his land and causing damp in a party wall.
7. The Council responded and said there was not a ‘distance from boundary’ requirement in the Permitted Development Regulations, but where an outbuilding was within 4 metres of a boundary, it should be under 2.5 metres. The Council said this was the case here. In relation to the issues around encroachment and damp in the party wall, the Council said these were civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour.
8. As the local planning authority, it is for the Council to satisfy itself whether a structure or building meets the requirements for permitted development. In this case, the Council was satisfied the building met the requirements and enforcement action was not required. Further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault or a different outcome.
9. Matters relating to encroachment and the party wall are civil matters and not for the Council. If Mr X wishes he can take legal action against his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault or a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman