Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of two separate planning enforcement issues. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an alleged data breach as he has already complained to us about this, and we will not investigate his complaint that the Council damaged his car as it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council breached the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and failed to keep proper records. He is also unhappy about the Council’s handling of his planning enforcement complaints concerning his neighbours.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to us several years ago regarding an alleged breach of data protection by the Council but we declined to investigate because we decided it would be reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner. The information Mr X has provided suggests he is looking to complain about the same issue now but any such complaint is invalid as we have already considered the matter. It is in any event unlikely we would reach any different decision as the Information Commissioner remains better placed to consider complaints about data protection issues.
7. Mr X has also made a claim to the Council for damage to his car which he believes the Council’s refuse collection crew are responsible for. The Council confirms it is considering Mr X’s claim and if Mr X is not happy with his response and believes he is entitled to compensation for the damage it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.
8. Mr X’s complaint correspondence also raises concerns about the Council’s handling of two unrelated planning enforcement issues. Mr X reported a possible breach of planning control by a neighbour (Neighbour Y) in early 2025 and as part of his report he also requested information about planning permission granted to a different neighbour (Neighbour Z), which he believed Neighbour Z may not have complied with.
9. The Council has confirmed the planning permission granted to Neighbour Z comprises the development Mr X believes may have been carried out without permission and it has therefore decided not to take any further action. The planning permission also dates from more than 10 years before Mr X raised his concerns and any breach is therefore likely to be immune from formal action.
10. The Council has also considered Mr X’s concerns about Neighbour Y’s development but explained there is no basis for any formal action in that case either. This is because it does not consider the action taken by Neighbour Y to amount to development and, even if it did, it would not require planning permission. The Council confirmed it referred the matter to its Highways team, as there was some overlap in the points raised by Mr X between the services, but that it was unlikely they would take any further action.
11. I have reached no view on whether the Council properly considered the issues Mr X reported about Neighbour Y because they do not cause Mr X significant injustice. Neighbour Y lives several doors away from Mr X and the work complained about does not directly or significantly affect him. It is therefore unlikely, even if we did find fault, that we would recommend any remedy for Mr X.
12. The law also does not allow us to question the Council’s professional judgement on the point of whether the work carried out amounts to development and whether it should take any formal action in respect of it, unless there is evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision. While Mr X claims a conflict of interest in the way the Council investigated the case, and although he claims corruption, I have seen no evidence that would allow us to question its decision in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman