Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action and to restrict Mr X’s communications with officers. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to take action against his neighbour’s unauthorised development. He also complains the Council is bullying and harassing him.

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.

(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. In 2022, the Council served an Enforcement Notice against development on land next to Mr X’s home. The neighbour appealed to the Planning Inspector, who upheld the Notice.
6. The Council confirms it has visited the site and is satisfied several actions have been taken to comply with the Enforcement Notice. It also confirms there are a few vehicles and some equipment remaining on the site. However, it considers it is not expedient to take further action.
7. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question a council’s decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
8. The Council acknowledged that breaches remain on the site. However, it decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
9. Mr X also complains the Council is bullying and harassing him. The Council sent Mr X a letter warning him that his contact with officers was breaching its persistent and unreasonable complainant behaviour policy because he:
• refused to accept the Council’s decisions; and
• used a scattergun approach by contacting multiple people about the same issue.

The Council asked him to change his behaviour when contacting its officers.

10. Mr X did not change the way he contacted the Council. The Council therefore implemented its persistent and unreasonable complainant behaviour policy and placed the following restrictions on his communications:
• It appointed an officer to act as the single point of contact (SPOC) for Mr X’s communications.
• Responses will be made weekly.
• It will not respond to correspondence about issues which have previously been considered.
11. It told Mr X it will review the restrictions in six months and advised he can challenge its decision.
12. The Council acted in line with its policy when it decided to restrict Mr X’s contact. Because there was no fault in the process it followed, I cannot question its decision no matter how much Mr X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to take enforcement action against the remaining breaches of planning control on his neighbour’s property. We will not investigate his complaint that the Council is bullying and harassing him by restricting his contact. Again, we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman