Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to direct a communications company to move an installation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to compel a communications company to reposition an installation which is on the pavement outside his house. The planning notice showed the installation on the boundary line between Mr X’s house and his neighbour’s, but the company has installed it in a different position.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 grants permitted development rights for certain installations, and this installation falls within that bracket. This means the communications company did not have to seek planning permission from the Council for the installation.
6. The communications company did have to give the Council notice of intention to install, which they did. The notice showed the communications company intended to place the installation on the boundary line between Mr X and his neighbour’s properties.
7. The Council did not object to the notice but reminded the communications company that the installation would have to meet certain criteria to be lawful. The exact positioning of the installation, whether on the boundary line or outside Mr X’s house, did not form part of the criteria and did not require approval from the Council.
8. Despite what the notice said, the company placed the installation outside Mr X’s driveway. Mr X reported the issue to the Council and asked it to direct the company to move the installation, but the Council told Mr X it could not force the company to do this.
9. That the final position of the installation differed slightly from what was in the notice but this is not enough to make the installation unlawful. The fact that the installation falls within the criteria referenced in paragraph 7 means the Council could not force the communications company to move it. We cannot therefore say the Council was at fault for refusing to do so.
10. The Council did, however, write to the company asking it to consider repositioning the installation, which is the most it could do. We could not therefore achieve anything more for Mr X by investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions and cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. The Council has limited enforcement powers in relation to the installation and those powers are not applicable in this instance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman