Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision to take enforcement action. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision to take enforcement action. Ms X says she has been treated unfairly by the Council and the enforcement officer gave incorrect and inconsistent advice. Ms X says she has been caused significant stress by the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

5. 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))
6. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms X has complained about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action. However, Ms X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector against the enforcement notice. I consider it would have been reasonable for Ms X to have used her right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not have addressed all the issues complained about.
10. Ms X has raised many concerns about the Council’s enforcement investigation. But how the Council dealt with the planning breach is related to the enforcement notice which could have been appealed by Ms X.
11. The Council also served the developer that Ms X purchased the property from with an enforcement notice. The developer appealed to the Planning Inspector against the notice. Therefore, the Planning Inspector has decided if the enforcement notice should stand, and we cannot investigate the actions and decisions made by the Planning Inspector. Ms X also had the opportunity to comment on the appeal as an interested party.
12. Ms X has complained about how she was treated by the enforcement officer and says personal information was disclosed to a third party without permission. However, I do not consider the injustice suffered because of the issues Ms X has raised about how she was treated by the officer significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Ms X can complain to the Information Commisioner’s Office if she is unhappy with how the Council dealt with her personal information as this is the appropriate body to deal with these matters.
13. Ms X has also complained the case officer incorrectly told her she would need planning permission to instal a gate at her property. However, the Council has apologised for the error and Ms X was informed she did not need permission before an application was made. Therefore, I do not consider she has suffered any significant injustice in this regard.
14. Ms X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Ms X has not been caused significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman