Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of enforcement matters related to works at a property next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its planning enforcement decisions prior to 2025, and other parts of the complaint are premature.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of enforcement matters related to works at a neighbouring property.
2. He says this has had an impact on his amenity and privacy, and disrupts the character of the area. He also says the lack of action and communication has caused considerable stress, frustration and a feeling of being let down by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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
• 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) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

5. With regard to the first bullet point above, 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)
6. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
7. And 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

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included information about their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications for the neighbouring site.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. I appreciate Mr X was unhappy about the Council’s decisions in late-2024 not to pursue any planning enforcement action against the neighbour, and he questions the measurements the Council relied upon when considering the matter
10. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body against decisions on planning enforcement cases. 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 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.
11. It is for councils to judge whether there is a breach of planning control. If there is a breach, councils have the discretion to take enforcement action to remedy this; but they are under no obligation to do so. In each case, councils may decide whether further action is expedient. Government guidance is that councils should act proportionately when considering this. There is no expectation councils should automatically enforce against every planning breach.
12. Councils may therefore decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements or seeking an assurance from the developer. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue.
13. In this case, when the Council was informed of discrepancies in the neighbour’s first application, it was entitled to advise them to withdraw it and submit an alternative type of application instead.
14. When this alternative application was not forthcoming, the Council conducted a site visit in late-2024 and took measurements and photographs. It has explained to Mr X how the measurements were taken, and why they might differ to his own measurements. It concluded the works benefitted from permitted development rights, but also explained why it would not be expedient to pursue enforcement action even if the works did exceed permitted development limits.
15. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its late-2024 decisions on the planning enforcement case, so we will not start an investigation.
16. And, with reference to paragraph 6 above, we have not investigated the following matters because they have not exhausted the Council’s formal complaint process:
• Any events/issues which have occurred or arisen since the Council’s mid‑January 2025 Stage 2 complaint response, including the alleged failure to enforce the mid-2025 planning application decision.
• the Council’s ongoing consideration of building control matters.

It is reasonable to expect Mr X to make a fresh complaint to the Council about these specific matters. If he remains unhappy about the Council’s final response, he may then make a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the planning enforcement decisions made in late-2024, and other matters are premature.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman