Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consider Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control and building regulations. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter. And we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has ignored his complaints about his neighbour’s unlawful extensions for years.
2. He says the developments at his neighbour’s home have caused damp, trespass and he is living next to possibly unsafe buildings.
3. Mr X wants:
• The neighbour’s extensions demolished;
• Court action taken against his neighbour; and
• Disciplinary action taken against all Council staff involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council confirms it has inspected the neighbour’s property. It says the extensions were built in the 1990’s. As they have been in place for more than ten years the buildings are exempt from enforcement action.
8. A breach of planning control is defined in s.171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) as:
• carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or
• failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.
9. However, in most cases, development becomes immune from enforcement if no action is taken:
• Within 4 years of substantial completion for a breach of planning control consisting of operational development.
• Within 4 years for an unauthorised change of use to a single dwellinghouse.
• Within 10 years for any other breach of planning control (essentially other changes of use). (s.171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990)
10. As the Council confirms the extensions were built in the 1990’s, according to the law, the Council cannot take enforcement action and require the extensions to be removed.
11. The Council has also confirmed the neighbour’s guttering is not a regulatory function and therefore this is a civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
12. The Council has inspected the neighbour’s property and explained why it cannot take action against the extensions. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his reports of breaches of planning control and building regulations.
13. Mr X also complains the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. The Council has apologised for this. We expect councils to follow their complaint policies. However it is not a good use of public funds to investigate issues about complaint handling alone.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control and building regulations.
• We cannot require the neighbour’s buildings to be demolished, so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
• We cannot require the Council to take disciplinary action against Council staff, so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
• We do not consider it is a good use of public funds to investigate issues about the complaint process alone if we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman