Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with reports of breaches of planning control as we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The law states we cannot consider any matters relating to planning applications which have been appealed to the Planning Inspector. Further investigations into the Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Finally, we do not consider it a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about the complaints procedure alone if we are not considering the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
• Failed to follow its complaint procedure and failed to explain the reason for this failure.
• Failed to investigate potential collusion between Council officers and her neighbour; and
• Failed to prevent harassment and obstruction by her neighbour.
2. Ms X wants the Council to:
• Acknowledge and respond to all her complaints according to the complaint procedure. And to explain why it failed to respond to her previous complaint.
• Investigate materials placed against her wall by her neighbour and the planting of a tree as breaches of planning control and to take enforcement action where breaches are found.
• Monitor her neighbour’s actions to ensure no further breaches of planning control. Also to provide her with guidance on legal protection to prevent further obstructions.
• Pay her compensation for distress. And for delays in progressing her planning application and for the cost of independent reports she needed to overturn the Council’s refusal of her planning applications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complains the Council has failed to investigate potential collusion between Council officers and her neighbour.
8. The Council has provided written confirmation that her neighbour has no contracts with the Council. He also has no relationship with Council officers and is not personally known to its planning team. I understand Ms X wants proof this is the case in the form of audit trails or email logs. However, the Council has confirmed the neighbour is not known to its officers. There is no requirement for it to provide evidence in the form Ms X wants.
9. I understand Ms X has a difficult relationship with her neighbour. However, the Council is required to investigate the reports of breaches of planning control that it may receive. This means it must investigate reports that she has breached planning control as well as her reports that her neighbour has breached planning rules.
10. The Council has also confirmed to Ms X that:
• Officers did not advise her neighbour of the outcome of Ms X’s Prior Approval application before the formal decision was made and confirmed to Ms X.
• There is no connection or collusion between officers and her neighbour.
• Party wall issues raised by her neighbour were referred to the Council’s building control team for consideration.
11. Ms X is not satisfied with the Council’s response as she says her neighbour told her that he knew her application would be refused before she was told. However, the Council has confirmed more than once that it did not tell her neighbour the outcome of Ms X’s prior approval application. I accept her neighbour may say different, but the Council is not responsible for the actions of her neighbour or for what he may have told her.
12. Ms X complains the Council has refused to take enforcement action against her neighbour’s placement of materials and planting a tree next to her boundary wall. However, the material and items are not located on Ms X’s property, rather she says the materials have caused damp in her garages and the tree encroaches onto her land.
13. I have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council rating to these issues. Neither placing of materials nor the planting of the tree next to Ms X’s boundary wall are planning matters for the Council to resolve. Rather these are civil matters which Ms X will have to resolve directly with her neighbour. She is free to seek her own legal advice.
14. The Council is not responsible for monitoring the actions of Ms X’s neighbour. The responsibility for complying with planning permissions and conditions lays with the applicant. Ms X can report legitimate breaches of planning control (for example, not building according to approved plans or building without planning permission) to the Council for its consideration.
15. The Council has confirmed there are no planning enforcement cases open on the site. There is a building regulation application which is ongoing at the time of writing this decision.
16. Ms X says the Council caused her to incur costs for specialist reports she needed to overturn its refusals of her planning applications. However, Ms X appealed to the Planning Inspector against these decisions. The law says the Ombudsman cannot consider any matters relating to planning application which were decided by the Planning Inspector. This is the case even if the appeal may not provide or have provided a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed.
17. Ms X has several concerns about the way the Council has dealt with her complaints.
18. The Council did not respond to Ms X’s complaint within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. It has apologised for this. While we would expect the Council to respond in accordance with its complaints policy I do not propose to investigate this issue further. We consider it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports of breaches of planning control made by Ms X and made against Ms X to justify investigating.
• We cannot investigate any matters concerns planning application which have been appealed to the Planning Inspector.
• We cannot add to the Council’s investigation of her complaint and its response. And it is not a good use of public funds to investigate complaints about the way the Council has dealt with a complaint as a discrete issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman