Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not enforcing as it has done previously regarding overgrown land near his property, not explaining its decision, and not accepting further complaints from him. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement process to warrant investigation. Even if there were fault, the matters cause Mr X insufficient significant injustice to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the key outcome he seeks wants. We do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property near a small piece of land between an access road and the highway. The land is owned by a third party and has become overgrown several times in recent years, including this year. Mr X complains the Council has:
1. decided not to enforce regarding the overgrown land, despite having done so last year;
2. failed to explain its decision;
3. refused to accept any further complaints or queries from him on the matter.
2. Mr X says the land is an eyesore which spoils the view from his and his neighbours’ properties, damaging their amenity. He says weeds from the land spread seeds into gardens, making maintenance harder. Mr X wants the Council to take enforcement action again and do so annually if necessary. He also wants the Council to apologise and admit they were wrong to not involve the residents in its enforcement decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr X, viewed relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Enforcement is a discretionary power held by local planning authorities. It is for those authorities’ officers to make their decisions on whether to use their powers. National government advises authorities to use enforcement as a last resort and only where there is significant harm being caused.
8. In response to Mr X’s report about the land, the Council’s enforcement officers visited, inspected and produced a written decision. Their written report gives the officers’ reasons for not enforcing this year. Officers say they reflected on the previous enforcement and the current state of the land. They note the introduction of new approaches to land management at the Council have given biodiversity issues greater weight in enforcement decision-making. Officers determine the setting and location of the land meant it would not be an area expected to be ‘manicured’ and that its condition did not require it to be cut back to maintain the appearance of the surrounding area. They concluded the Council should take no enforcement or other action as the land provides additional natural habitat and there were no other grounds requiring them to enforce.
9. Officers gathered and assessed the relevant information, applied their Council’s revised approach to land management and government guidance, to inform their decision not to enforce. A council is not bound by its previous enforcement decisions to continue to do so for the same plot, even if its broader land management approach has not changed. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision-making process here or how it has set out that decision to warrant an investigation. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Even if it was fault for the Council not to enforce, we would not investigate. We realise Mr X finds the land unsightly when overgrown and considers it has a negative impact on his property’s amenity. The relationship between the main part of the land and Mr X’s property makes the views he has of it oblique. This, and his property’s distance from the land, means any negative impact on the amenity of his property from it being overgrown does not amount to a significant injustice. Any seeds from the land falling on his property and requiring some weeding would not amount to a significant impact on him. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from the Council not enforcing here to warrant us investigating.
11. The key practical outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is for the Council to reverse its decision and take enforcement action. We cannot order councils to use their discretionary enforcement powers. That we cannot achieve this core outcome for Mr X is a further reason why we will not investigate.
12. Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaint responses to his further points and queries. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision‑making process to warrant an investigation; and
• even if there were fault, the outcome causes him insufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the key Council action he seeks from his complaint; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman