Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the work carried out by the Council in default of an Enforcement Notice. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has breached planning permission by installing a pump station next to his home.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X purchased a new home from a developer. It was a condition of the planning permission that the road, footpath and drainage should be complete before any houses were occupied. A building regulation completion certificate was issued and the houses were sold and/or occupied without the road, footpath and drainage being completed. The drainage system failed.
6. The Council could not take enforcement action against the developer for breaching planning control as they had ceased trading.
7. Mr X and the other residents have responsibilities for any breaches of planning control or failures to follow the Building Regulations following their purchase of properties on the development.
8. The Council served an Enforcement Notice on the residents at their request. This allowed the Council to carry out the work in default as the residents did not want to arrange this themselves.
9. The purpose of work carried out by the Council was to give the residents a legal route to correct the defective drainage system. The residents asked the Council to carry out the work in default.
10. The original plans for the development which were granted planning permission included a pumping station about 125 metres from Mr X’s home. However, the Council confirmed the site was built with the pumping station next to Mr X’s home. The Council also confirmed this existed on the site before Mr X bought his home.
11. The purpose of works carried out in default is to correct the harm caused to residents by the substandard and faulty drainage system installed by the developer. It does not have to correct the built development so it follows the original planning permission.
12. The Council ensured the work completed in default of the Enforcement Notice served on the residents, including Mr X, corrected the faulty and illegal drainage system. The cost of the work has been passed on to the residents, including Mr X, and shared between them. The Council says installing a new pumping station as shown on the approved plans would have been more work. This would have raised the costs of the work for the residents.
13. The Council decided to correct the defective drainage system and remove the harm caused to residents by using the existing pumping station. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. It is unlikely that further investigation will find fault in the Council’s actions.
14. To resolve his complaint Mr X wants the Council to
• Buy his house.
• Pay him compensation.
• Move the pump station to the permitted location; and
• Withdraw the Enforcement Notice or charge on his home.

This is not something we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman