Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council deciding not to enforce against her neighbour’s caravan, how it dealt with an environmental health (EH) issue related to the same neighbour, and its management of the EH case. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process on the caravan or its practical action on the EH case to warrant us investigating. The Council has apologised for giving unclear responses about the status of the EH case. Investigation would not provide a different outcome. There is insufficient injustice caused to Mrs X’s family from having to seek Council updates on the EH case to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives with Mr Y next to a property whose owners have a caravan, cars and other items on the land in front of their house. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. has not enforced against her neighbours for putting a caravan on their front drive;
2. did not deal properly with the environmental health (EH) issue caused by the condition of the neighbouring property;
3. gave contradictory information on whether the EH case was closed or ongoing;
4. failed to keep her informed about the EH case.
2. Mrs X says her neighbour’s daughter is living in the caravan. She says the caravan is located close to a ground floor bedroom window and overlooks it, and is affecting her and Mr Y’s enjoyment of the house. Mrs X says the condition of the neighbouring front drive caused a rat infestation. She says she has spent time and been caused trouble from chasing these issues, causing distress to her and Mr Y. Mrs X wants the Council to:

• agree the caravan requires planning permission as a separate dwelling;
• keep her updated on the EH case and change the officer on the case if the current one will not give updates.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X, online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where they identify or receive a report they decide is a planning control breach. They are required to investigate claimed breaches, but any enforcement is discretionary. If they decide there is no breach, they could not enforce. Councils acting as planning authorities have different options to respond to planning control breaches, from taking no formal action to issuing an Enforcement Notice.
7. We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council decision if there is fault in the decision-making process officers have followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a council’s view with our or someone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.
8. In response to Mrs X and Mr Y’s concerns about the caravan, the Council investigated. Officers visited the site and collected information about the neighbours’ use of the caravan. They confirmed the neighbour’s daughter was living in it. Mrs X or Mr Y advised the Council the daughter was the subject of a restriction preventing her from entering the family house. Officers considered the information obtained against planning law. They determined the caravan being placed on the driveway was not development so was not a breach of planning control. Officers concluded the use of the caravan by the property-owner’s daughter meant it was ancillary to the main house and not itself a separate planning unit needing planning permission.
9. The Council gathered and considered information about the caravan and its use then applied relevant planning legislation to reach its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process on this matter to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. The Council’s EH officers have been involved because of the condition of the neighbour’s front garden. In response to Mrs X’s reports of rats on the land, officers visited in the same month and laid bait. Two months later there had been no reports of further rat activity. Officers inspected and took practical action to deal with the rats. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way officers dealt with the infestation issue here to warrant investigation of this issue.
11. The Council accepts it gave contradictory information to Mrs X or Mr Y on whether the EH case was closed or ongoing. It upheld this part of the complaint and apologised. The Council has also confirmed the EH case remains open. While officers have determined the land’s condition is not sufficiently poor to be a statutory nuisance and warrant enforcement, they continue to work with the neighbour to improve it. Were we to have investigated, these are the outcomes we would have sought for this aspect of the complaint. Investigation would not achieve a different outcome which has not already been obtained, so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
12. We note Mrs X says the Council has failed to keep her or Mr Y informed about the EH case. The Council has provided Mrs X’s family with various officer contact details to use to seek updates more readily. Officers have also advised Mrs X or Mr Y to contact them if the condition of the neighbour’s land gets worse. While Mrs X and Mr Y may prefer the Council to send updates, the time required and trouble caused to them from seeking updates is an insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation of this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement decision-making process regarding the caravan to warrant us investigating; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council responded to the vermin infestation to justify an investigation; and
• investigation of the Council giving unclear responses about the status of the EH case would not provide a different outcome; and
• there is insufficient injustice caused to her or Mr Y from having to seek Council updates on the EH case to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman