Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not follow its own guidelines when issuing them with a Temporary Stop Notice (TSN), and believes its actions were influenced by the involvement of a councillor.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• the Council’s ‘Planning Enforcement Plan’.
• the enforcement report authorising the issuing of the TSN.
• the TSN.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy they were issued with a TSN. But our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better or differently, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
6. 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:
• there is no duty placed on the Council to pro-actively check that works are carried out in accordance with approved plans. Rather, that is the responsibility of the person carrying out the works.
• there is, however, a duty to investigate where alleged unauthorised works are reported to it, irrespective of who makes that report.
• the Council has investigated specific reports/allegations of unauthorised works as and when they arose.
• I have seen no evidence that the decision to issue the TSN, following a full site visit, was influenced by who had reported the alleged unauthorised works.
• The Council was entitled to decide to issue a TSN, even if Mrs X thinks negotiation or a more informal approach was appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman