Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding it is not expedient to pursue enforcement action against a breach of planning control at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has decided not to take planning enforcement action against a window inserted at the neighbouring property. The window does not benefit from permitted development rights as it has clear glazing.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X, which included her complaint correspondence with the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is very unhappy the Council has decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action against the window.
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. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council 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.
8. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, they should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. Planning enforcement is discretionary, and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. In other words, it is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control, and if it is expedient to take further action.
9. In this case, the Council has visited the site, viewed the outlook through the window, considered Mrs X’s photographs and concerns, and has explained to Mrs X in detail why it is not considered expedient to take any further action. That is a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach. The Ombudsman will not start an investigation into that decision, because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it was made.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive matter being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue, in isolation, any concerns Mrs X has about the Council’s complaint process.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision on the planning enforcement case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman