Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to take planning enforcement action against alleged breaches of planning control at a holiday park. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter, and it does not cause the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to take planning enforcement action against the replacement of touring caravan/tent pitches with static caravans at a holiday park.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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))

3. With regard to the first bullet point, we consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. And with regard to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
5. Also, as a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate assessments of cases; closing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the Council did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• the information provided by Mrs X.
• information about the planning application history for the site, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy with what has happened at the holiday park, and disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action.
8. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decisions. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. The Council has visited the site on more than one occasion, and sought legal advice. It has explained to Mrs X why the change to static caravans does not amount to a breach of planning control, and that it is not considered expedient to pursue enforcement action against the associated engineering works and decking areas. These are professional judgements the Council was entitled to reach, even if Mrs X disagrees with the conclusions reached.
10. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision not to pursue planning enforcement action, so the Ombudsman will not investigate the matter.
11. And even if there was some evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, this has not, from the Ombudsman’s perspective, caused Mrs X a significant injustice. In reaching this view, I am mindful that whilst her view may have changed, she lives approximately 250m from the site. So, the Ombudsman would not start an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint for this reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in way the Council reached its decision not to pursue enforcement action, and she has not been caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman