Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s concerns about a property near his home or possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained the Council has failed to take action in relation to an unoccupied listed building near his home which he says is in a poor state of repair. Mr X has also complained about how the Council has dealt with possible breaches of planning control and says the Council has failed to properly communicate with him.

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 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
6. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
7. In this case, the Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and officers visited the site. However, the Council said it found no clear evidence of a breach. It accepted there was vegetation growth and vehicles stored at the property. But decided it would not be expedient to take further action in this regard. The Council’s environmental protection team also considered Mr X’s concerns but decided it did not have any grounds to take action in relation to the property. I am also satisfied the Council explained why it does not have sufficient grounds to support an Empty House Management Order.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns about the property and possible planning breaches, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has also complained the Council did not properly communicate with him. However, I do not consider any injustice suffered because of any fault with how the Council communicated with Mr X significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman as a stand-alone issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman