Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about lack of planning enforcement action by the Council because any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a delay in enforcement action by the Council.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained in June 2025 about potential planning breaches at a development near his home. He had previously complained about this issue. The Council did not respond until October. It upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised for the delay which it said was due to a lack of resources. It said it would do a site visit.
6. The Council carried out a visit and decided it would not take enforcement action. It told Mr X this within days of the visit.
7. We consider complaints where the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. While I recognise the Council’s delay has caused Mr X some frustration and uncertainty, I do not consider it significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman