Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take enforcement action against works undertaken at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the complainant’s concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against works undertaken by his neighbour to the front of their property.

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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. With reference to the first bullet point, 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 Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the works the neighbour has undertaken and the impact this is having on his property.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council 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.
8. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Mr X concerns to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Council’s Planning Enforcement and Building Control teams have visited the site on a number of occasions.
• The Planning Enforcement team has explained the works do not amount to a breach of planning control.
• The Building Control team has also explained why it will not take action in relation to the retaining wall, access, overflow drainage or the soakaway.
• The Council is not responsible for enforcing Party Wall matters, or covenants; rather, these are private, civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it has considered Mr X’s concerns.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman