Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a planning enforcement officer. We cannot achieve the result the complainant is seeking and an investigation will not lead to a different outcome. And there in no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a planning enforcement officer is guilty of misconduct in public office. He wants the Council to provide a public apology and take disciplinary action against the officer.

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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was subject to enforcement action for a breach of planning control at his property.
6. In 2024 the Council advised it was satisfied with the remedial action taken and the enforcement notice had been removed.
7. Following reports of further breaches of planning control, an enforcement officer asked Mr X to lower new fencing installed at his home.
8. In March this year Mr X provided photos showing he had lowered the fence. The enforcement officer noticed a wall in the photos. In response to her enquiry, Mr X confirmed the wall was part of the original extension which was removed in response to the Council’s enforcement notice. The enforcement officer asked Mr X to remove the remaining part of the wall within 28 days.
9. Mr X complained this was an unreasonable request as the officer had visited his home in the past and not noticed the wall.
10. In response to his complaint, the Council explained the officer had not noticed the wall before as it was behind garden furniture. However, in April the Council confirmed it had decided it was not expedient to take further action against the wall and the case was closed.
11. I understand Mr X believes the enforcement officer is guilty of misconduct in public office. He says he wants the officer disciplined.
12. The Ombudsman cannot by law involve themselves in personnel matters. This includes disciplinary procedures. Therefore we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
13. As the Council has confirmed it will not be taking further enforcement action against the wall and the case has been closed; we consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
14. Finally, we do not consider it a good use of public funds to carry out an investigation purely to obtain an apology.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.
• Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome; and
• An investigation is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman