Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that it will not take further enforcement action against a neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to take further action against a neighbour, despite them not fully complying with an enforcement notice. He says this has caused him distress and leaves open the possibility the neighbour may reinstate the unauthorised works in future. He wants the Council to fully enforce the notice and require his neighbour to remove the unauthorised work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone developed land without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of effective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Councils also do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. In this case, the Council issued an enforcement notice against Mr X’s neighbour for unauthorised development. The neighbour partly complied with the notice but did not remove all the unauthorised work.
9. The Council considered whether to take further action. It decided that the work completed was sufficient to remove the detrimental impact on Mr X’s amenity. Although it accepted the neighbour had not fully complied with the notice, it decided it was not expedient to pursue further enforcement action.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Although Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, it is a decision the Council is entitled to make. Enforcement action is discretionary, and the Council does not have to act if it does not consider it would be proportionate. The Council properly considered the matter before reaching its decision, so it is unlikely an investigation would find fault.
11. Mr X is concerned his neighbour may re-instate the unauthorised works but we cannot investigate speculative events that may occur in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman