Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning and Environmental enforcement because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not taken enforcement action against a neighbour for carrying out unauthorised work to cars. He also complains about the unauthorised parking of cars on the grass verge which he says is ruining the environment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says that a neighbour on his road has been carrying out work to vehicles on his land and parking cars of the grass verge. The Environmental Protection Officer investigated and concluded that, following a site visit, the matter was not sufficient to warrant environmental enforcement action (although a warning letter was sent to the owner).
6. A Planning Officer visited and discussed the matter with Environmental Health. The Council concluded however that no action should be taken because; there was no health hazard, the vehicles were being stored (not worked on) and the work appeared to be that of a hobby rather than a business.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
8. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding not to take enforcement action. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
9. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.
10. I note that Mr X lives some distance from the site itself. I am not persuaded therefore that, if that had been fault, the matter would warrant investigation as the level of injustice would not warrant this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman