Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action in relation to advertisement signage for a business below Mr X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s lack of enforcement action in relation to advertisement signage for a business below his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action in relation to an advertisement sign for a business sited below a property he owns.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about this matter and explained it is not obliged to take enforcement action against planning breaches and that it will do so when it decides it is expedient to take such action.
8. This is a decision for the Council to make and its merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
9. While the Council has acknowledged it could have provided some further information in its communications with Mr X, and that there was an error in its wording in the Stage 2 response when it wrongly indicated there was an outstanding application waiting to be determined, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman