Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in enforcing against a breach of planning control. It is reasonable for the complainants to use their right of appeal against enforcement notices, and to present their defence in court against planning enforcement orders. The courts are best placed to consider their claim for costs, and it is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate complaints processes in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council has issued planning enforcement notices and orders to her parents (Mr and Mrs Y) without making clear why, and how they can rectify the matter. She says the Council has asked Mr and Mrs Y to take action outside of their ability and has left them without support and guidance. She says the Council has then refused to respond properly to their complaint. She says the matter has caused her parents significant distress and they have spent significant funds trying to meet the Council’s demands. She wants the Council to provide answers and compensate Mr and Mrs Y, and to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr and Mrs Y have been in discussions with the Council for several years relating to their property. The Council has served planning enforcement notices on them. Such notices carry a right of appeal, and we would normally expect people to use that right. The information I have seen indicates Mr and Mrs Y have exercised this right, and there is not a good reason for us to consider the Council’s use of planning enforcement notices.
8. Mrs X also makes reference to the Council having issued enforcement orders. It is reasonable for Mr and Mrs Y to present their defence to the magistrates court and there is therefore also not a good reason for us to consider the Council’s use of enforcement orders.
9. The complaint is also about the Council’s actions outside of the formal enforcement notices and orders. Mrs X says the Council has failed to provide clear information and guidance to Mr and Mrs Y and has acted disproportionately in requiring Mr and Mrs Y to take action to remedy the issue without sufficient evidence. Mr and Mrs Y have sought legal assistance on the matter and their solicitor has sent a letter before action to the Council. This lists the costs they believe the Council is liable to pay, which totals nearly £50,000 due to works Mr and Mrs Y have had carried out, which Mrs X says have been ill-informed.
10. Where we recommend a financial remedy, it is usually a modest amount intended to be symbolic rather than purely financial. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to calculate economic losses or recommend compensation in the way the courts can. We could not achieve the outcome Mr and Mrs Y seek and it is reasonable for them to take these matters to the courts to recoup their costs from the Council where they feel these were accrued due to its negligence. It is open to them to ask the court to include their legal costs if their claim is successful.
11. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. We will therefore not consider the complaint about the Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint in isolation, given that we will not investigate the substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because Mr and Mrs Y have a right of appeal relating to enforcement notices, and it is reasonable for them to defend their case in the magistrates court against enforcement orders. It is reasonable for them to present the other matters to the courts given the significant amount they seek to claim from the Council. We will not consider the complaints processes in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman