Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action against planning breaches reported by Mr X and about its handling of his complaint about the matter. 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 the Council failed to take action in relation to planning breaches he reported from premises in his road. He says serious harm occurred on two occasions when he and his family could hear noise and amplified music. He also complains about the Council’s complaint handling.

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 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. (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, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about its response to his two separate reports of breaches of planning conditions from business premises in his road.
7. The Council considered his concerns but explained that while he had evidenced breaches on occasional dates, it had not found evidence to suggest the breaches formed a regular pattern of trading by the business. It said any enforcement action it undertook had to be proportionate and taken with reasonable cause and that it would not be taking enforcement action at the time. It did, however, confirm it had spoken to the owner of the premises about the breaches and to remind them of their need to comply with the planning permission granted.
8. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions councils make with which complainants are unhappy. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council acknowledged that the breaches had occurred but decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
9. Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaint handling but this is a subsidiary matter which we will not investigate when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

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