Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a Planning Contravention Notice to the complainant. This is primarily because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the enforcement case.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council issuing him with a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) relating to an alleged breach of planning control and failing to provide him with associated information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. In relation to the first bullet point above, we can 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)
4. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• the Council’s ‘Planning Enforcement Policy’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X was unhappy about receiving the PCN. But the Council has a duty to investigate alleged breaches of planning control.
7. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled this enforcement case to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• it is normal for planning enforcement officers to visit the site/surrounding area of an alleged breach of planning control and to take photographs. As the alleged breach could be viewed from a public vantage point, there was no requirement to contact Mr X about the visit.
• planning authorities are entitled to issue a PCN where it believes a breach of planning control may be occurring and wants to obtain further information.
• it is normal practice for a PCN to state the possible consequences of failing to respond to it.
• the Council has provided Mr X with the dates its officer’s visited the area prior to issuing the PCN.
8. And with reference to paragraph 4 above, as we are not proposing to investigate the Council’s handling of the enforcement case, it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate Mr X’s associated concerns about the complaint process in isolation.
9. Finally, we could not achieve one of the outcomes Mr X is seeking, as we cannot recommend disciplinary action against Council staff members.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the planning enforcement case.
• it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate the complaints process on its own.
• we cannot achieve one of the outcomes he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman