Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of its planning enforcement investigations into works carried out at the complainant’s property. It is unlikely we could achieve a substantively different or worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of its enforcement investigation into an alleged breach of planning control at her property. In particular, she says the Council failed to properly consider her medical condition/disability in the way it responded to her enquiries/communications, and had no power to look into any private, rights of way issues.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
4. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Ms X is unhappy about how the Council’s development management team handled their discussion regarding the submission of a planning application. But the planning enforcement team ultimately decided not to pursue the matter further, so Ms X was not required to submit an application.
6. The Council acknowledges Ms X would have had a need for reasonable adjustments to be made to help navigate the online planning application process. But it was correct to say that officers could not act on Ms X’s behalf to assemble or submit an application. It also could not take Ms X’s disability or financial situation into account when assessing the planning issues in this case.
7. The Council has also apologised for the length of time the process took, and acknowledges its communications with Ms X could have been clearer and more helpful.
8. As the Council has already closed the enforcement case and apologised to Ms X, I do not see that an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve a substantively different or worthwhile outcome, so we will not pursue her complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate ’s complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve a substantively different or worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman