Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take action against a breach of planning control. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision. And we do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice because the of the delay in the Council’s response to their enquiries and complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for his mother-in-law, Mrs Y. He says the Council:
• Failed to act when unauthorised work was carried out a neighbouring property.
• Has a conflict of interest because the property is owned by a housing association; and
• Failed to respond to his emails and failed to follow the complaint procedure.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered 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. From the information I have seen I am satisfied the Council has properly considered Mr X’s concerns. It acknowledged the developer carried out works before planning permission was granted. However, it did not consider it was expedient to take enforcement action. It also advised Mr X that concerns about damage to Mrs Y’s property caused by the developer are civil matters and not issues that can be resolved through planning enforcement.
7. Planning permission has since been granted for the work carried out and there is no breach of planning control on the site.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide whether it was expedient to take enforcement action.
9. Mr X also complains the Council failed to respond to his emails and failed to respond to his complaint within the published timeframes.
10. We expect councils to respond to complainants according to its published procedures. And I acknowledge the frustration caused when it failed to do so. However, we do not consider the injustice caused by the failure to respond alone to have caused Mr X or Mrs Y significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation into this point.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered his report of a breach of planning control. And we do not consider he or Mrs Y suffered a significant personal injustice because of the delays in the Council’s responses to his enquiries and complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman