• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• My assessment
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. There is sufficient evidence that fault in the enforcement process has caused the complainant a significant injustice, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action after he reported a breach of planning control at a listed building. He says the Councils delays and refusal to act promptly have caused significant frustration and undermined his confidence in the enforcement system. He also says he has devoted substantial time and energy to pursuing the matter.

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 can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. And in relation 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
   • information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
   • information about the planning applications and the enforcement notice issued for the site, as available on the Council’s website.
   • the Council’s ‘Local Enforcement Plan 2024’.
   • the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the works which have been undertaken at this listed building, and thinks the Council should have done more to address the issue.
7. 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, or tell the Council what action it should take, or ask whether it could have done things better. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no 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, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
8. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has decided to approach this enforcement case, or of Mr X being caused a significant injustice; so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
   • planning enforcement action is discretionary. This means that whilst councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached, they are under no obligation to do so. In each case, councils will decide whether further action is expedient. Government guidance encourages councils to act proportionately when considering their enforcement powers. Councils may therefore decide to take informal action, or they may even decide not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting the submission of a retrospective application.
   • whilst the Council acknowledges it could have chased the site owner for a response between August and October 2024, it was ultimately entitled to consider the retrospective application which was eventually submitted in early‑2025, and to request further information from the applicant during the determination process.
   • Mr X lives approximately 1km from the site, so I do not see that he is directly affected by the works to the building.
9. I also understand an enforcement notice has recently been issued for the works. This is one of the outcomes Mr X was seeking. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything more worthwhile than this, so we would not pursue the complaint for this reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault in the enforcement process has caused him a significant injustice, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a more worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page