Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take planning enforcement action against works at a property next to the complainant, and for failing to adequately deal with his associated complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning enforcement matters, and it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate the complaints process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the impact of works undertaken at a neighbouring property, and that the Council has failed to take enforcement action against various breaches of planning control. Mr X also says the Council failed to adequately deal with his associated complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, 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)
5. We also cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issues at the heart of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• the planning applications submitted by the neighbour, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above would apply to any parts of the complaint about the Council’s decision on the neighbour’s planning application for the rear groundworks/landscaping. The application was approved in early-2023, but Mr X did not contact the Ombudsman until October 2024. I see no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider any parts of the complaint about the decision on that application.
9. And whilst I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about how that permission has been implemented, and about other works/activities at the site, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at planning enforcement decisions to decide if they are 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.
10. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decisions on the planning enforcement issues here to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• The Council’s correspondence/complaint responses set out its position on each of the alleged breaches of planning control, including how it reached its decisions, having taken various pieces of evidence/information into account (e.g. site visits, photographs, sales particulars). The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on each of the issues, even if Mr X disagrees with the conclusions it reached.
• The hard surface permitted development restrictions (as referred to in Mr X’s complaint) only apply where the affected land is between a wall forming a principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and a highway.
11. As we are not investigating Mr X’s substantive concerns about planning enforcement issues at the neighbouring site, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any associated concerns about how the Council handled his related complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the planning enforcement matters, and it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman