Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to take enforcement action against a breach of a planning condition. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against the breach of a planning condition, which says a garage should not be used other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the associated main dwelling.

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
• 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))

3. 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)
4. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, we do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, including an update on the status of the enforcement case.
• the planning application/permission which the condition was attached to.
• the Council’s ‘Planning Enforcement Plan’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the garage is not being used in accordance with the condition on the planning permission, and that he thinks the Council should be taking enforcement action to rectify this.
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, or tell it what action it should take. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it 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, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
8. In that regard, it is important to highlight that planning enforcement is discretionary. This means that whilst councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached, they are under no obligation to do so. In each case, councils will decide whether further action is expedient, having regard to the provisions of its development plan and to any other material planning considerations. Government guidance encourages councils to act proportionately when responding to breaches of planning control, so they are entitled to decide to take informal action (e.g. negotiating improvements, or seeking an assurance/undertaking) or they may decide not to act at all.
9. Here, the Council has acknowledged there is a technical breach of planning control. It has explained to Mr X that it understands the garage is only being used for storage, rather than for residential purposes, and that it will be sold back to the current owners of the main dwelling once the garage users’ circumstances allow. As the breach is likely to resolve itself with time, the Council placed the case on long term review. It has continued to communicate with the garage user during 2025, and has reminded them of the potential consequences of failing to comply with the condition.
10. The Council appears to have acted in accordance with its Planning Enforcement Plan. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered this matter so we will not start an investigation.
11. Furthermore, I have seen nothing to suggest that Mr X is caused a significant personal injustice by the condition being breached. With reference to paragraphs 2 and 4 above, we would not investigate the complaint for this reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman