Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. We have discontinued our investigation because this is a late complaint and there is no good reason to use discretion to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to take enforcement action against works done at his neighbouring property, contrary to the approved plans and that it failed to follow its own enforcement plan. He also says the Council failed to keep proper records of its decisions, responded poorly to his complaints and to his requests for meetings about this matter and wrongly provided redacted information.
2. Mr X says this has caused him a lack of privacy and light and reduced the value of his property. He also says he has spent significant time and trouble chasing this matter with the Council which has caused him and his family distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission, which the Council approved. The neighbour completed works on their house the same year.
9. Mr X contacted the Council in 2019, concerned that his neighbour had completed works contrary to planning permission.
10. Shortly after this, the Council started to investigate this by completing site visits and meeting with the neighbour’s builder.
11. Mr X contacted the Council towards the end of 2019 to ask for an update.
12. The Council replied shortly after to note they would be visiting Mr X’s neighbour.
13. Mr X asked the Council for an update in April 2020, but the Council said it could not visit his neighbour due to COVID-19 restrictions.
14. Mr X complained about this matter to the Council in October 2024, noting he had not had a full response from the Council in over three years. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2025.
15. We will not investigate this complaint, as it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have complained about these matters to both the Council and the Ombudsman sooner.
16. Mr X was aware of the main matter that is the subject of his complaint for around six and a half years before complaining to us. Although he was in contact with the Council about the matter during this time, there were several periods of months without contact. I am satisfied Mr X could have complained to the Council and us sooner and so I have not seen any good reason to use my discretion to investigate this late complaint.
17. Mr X also complained the Council wrongly provided redacted information in response to his request for case file documents. I will not investigate this matter because where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
18. Mr X also complained about the way the Council dealt with his complaints. I will not investigate this matter because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman