Summary: Mr X complains about the Councils actions in relation to enforcement action taken against him. Mr X also says the Council failed to take enforcement action against a business near his property. Mr X has also complained that the Council added him to its Cautionary Contacts Register and failed to allow him a chance to appeal. Mr X also says the Council has provided inconsistent information about the way files could be sent/received by it. Mr X says this has caused him distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to keep Mr X updated with any action it was taking about a planning enforcement issue he reported. The Council has agreed to write to Mr X to apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Councils actions in relation to enforcement action taken against him. Mr X also says the Council failed to take enforcement action against a business near his property. Mr X has also complained that the Council added him to its Cautionary Contacts Register and failed to allow him a chance to appeal. Mr X also says the Council has provided inconsistent information about the way files could be sent/received by it.
2. Mr X says this has caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not considered Mr X’s complaints about enforcement action the Council has taken against him as he could have appealed this. I have also not considered Mr X’s complaints about planning issues concerning access to his garage as this has been brought late and I do not consider there are good reasons to exercise discretion.
8. I have considered Mr X’s complaints about the Council adding him to its Cautionary Contacts Register and the information it gave regarding file transfer. I have also considered Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a business near his property.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. The Council operate a Cautionary Contact Register (CCR) which holds information about parties who it considers have used for example verbal or physical abuse or harassment in its dealings with them.
12. The CCR policy says once an incident is reported it will be considered by a line manager who will assess the risk to other members of staff. The line manager will then make a decision about a parties inclusion on the CCR.

Enforcement action

13. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
14. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
15. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
16. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, paragraph 60)

What happened

17. Mr X has been in contact with the Council regarding planning issues for several years.
18. The Council visited Mr X’s property in February 2025. The officer who attended reported an incident with Mr X which was reviewed. The Council decided to add Mr X to its CCR at the end of February 2025. The Council wrote to Mr X to tell him this.
19. Mr X emailed the Council in mid-March 2025 to raise an issue with a breach of planning at a business near his property. Mr X reported privacy screening had not been erected in accordance with the permission granted. The Council acknowledged the information several days later.
20. Mr X emailed the Council in mid-March 2025 in relation to his entry to its CCR. Mr X asked if the Council had downloaded CCTV of the alleged incident at his property. The Council told Mr X it could not view the file. Mr X asked for a link to share the file and the Council advised it did not use a file sharing facility. Mr X asked the Council what format it could view the file and explained the CCTV refuted the officer’s version of events. The Council advised it could view the CCTV in an mp.4 format but that there was no video attached. Mr X sent the file using a file transfer facility and the Council advised the link showed no video and the audio was unclear.
21. Mr X sent instructions of how to download the CCTV to the Council in late March 2025 and said that the officer it sent had no intention of dealing with his complaint when they attended site and fabricated allegations against him. Mr X resent the link to the CCTV. The Council said again it had viewed the link but there was no video and unclear audio.
22. The Council emailed Mr X in early April 2025 and said it had now been able to view the CCTV in a different format. The Council said there was nothing in the CCTV that changed its view. The Council noted Mr X spoke to the officer in a consistently raised voice and what could be interpreted as an aggressive manner. The Council went on to say irrespective of Mr X’s intentions the officer felt threatened, and the video confirms why that may have been.
23. Mr X emailed the Council the same day and said if the officer had felt threatened, they would have terminated the visit, stepped away or called the police and they did not do so.
24. Mr X complained to the Council in mid-June about the way an officer had spoken to him on the phone and raised a further complaint about the conduct of an officer and then the following day raised a complaint about the wider planning division.
25. Mr X submitted a report to the planning department in mid-June regarding all the discrepancies he has noted with planning matters and also sent a further email a few days later about planning issues he had noted.
26. Mr X raised a further complaint at the end of June about the head of planning.
27. The Council visited site in early August 2025. The officer who visited site reported an incident which occurred with Mr X regarding loud, abusive and threatening language.
28. The Council visited the business Mr X had raised an issue with regarding privacy screening in early September 2025 and then received an email from it advising screening had been replaced shortly after.

Analysis

Cautionary Contacts Register

29. The Council added Mr X to its CCR register following an incident reported by one of its officers. The Council reviewed the incident in line with its policy and informed Mr X it had added him to the CCR.
30. Mr X sent the Council CCTV footage of the alleged incident which it reviewed and confirmed nothing on the footage changed its view.
31. While I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the officer’s interpretation of the incident the Council has made a decision in line with its policy and has reviewed the decision when Mr X provided further information.
32. I have not found fault in the way the Council made or reviewed the decision and as such cannot question the decision it reached.

File transfer information

33. Mr X says the Council told him it could not use file transfer facilities to send or receive documents but then later used this in communication with him.
34. The Council told Mr X it was unable to view CCTV footage he sent using a file transfer facility. The Council were however able to view the CCTV footage anyway and told Mr X about this in April 2025.
35. I cannot see Mr X has been caused an injustice.

Enforcement action

36. Mr X emailed the Council in March 2025 regarding privacy screening which a business near his property had not put in place in line with planning conditions.
37. The Council has not been able to demonstrate what action was taken in relation to the report. But has shown that the privacy screening was put in place in September 2025.
38. I have not been able to see what action was taken between March and September 2025 and as such cannot say the Council acted within a reasonable timeframe in this matter. I have also not been able to see it kept Mr X updated with any action it may have been taking. This is fault and would have caused Mr X frustration.
39. However, as the screening was put in place this demonstrates the Council was taking some action and as such the injustice caused to Mr X has been limited.

Back to top

Action

40. Within four weeks of a final decision, the Council should:

• Write to Mr X and apologise for the frustration caused by the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman