Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because the matter is out of time and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of her parents that the Council will not take planning enforcement action against neighbours who have blocked access to their back outbuildings.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says that her parents complained to the Council about their neighbour’s actions in erecting fences and gates which now mean that they could not gain access to their outbuildings. This has hindered their ability to use the bin collection service.
7. The Council investigated the complaint and concluded in February 2024 that no enforcement action would be successful as the changes made to fences and gates had occurred after 10 years had passed which meant that the changes were immune from enforcement action. This was based on historic satellite imagery.
8. As the complainant was aware of the response more than 12 months ago, I consider the complaint out of time.
9. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the Council properly considered their powers to take action in this case 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. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. Their conclusion, that enforcement would not be successful, was made in the absence of administrative fault and so we cannot be critical of the Council’s conclusion. The Council advised that this was a civil disagreement which was a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the matter is out of time and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman