Summary: The Council is not at fault for the way it handled Mrs X’s reports of breaches of planning permission at a nearby house. This is because the Council did what it should have done.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed investigating her report about a breach of planning permission for a nearby house, and failed to take action about it.
2. Mrs X said this caused worry, anxiety, and anger. She said it might affect the structural integrity and value of her house. She worries that the nearby property will become a house in multiple occupation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Building control

7. Most building work requires building regulation approval. Building regulations set out requirements and guidance that builders and building owners are required to follow and consider. The purpose of the regulations is to make sure buildings are safe for those that use them or live around them.
8. A certificate of building regulations approval can be granted by councils acting as building control authorities, or by independent approved inspectors.
9. There are two ways a building owner can get building regulations approval. These are:

• Full plans application: The owner or their agent submits plans. The plans are checked for compliance with building regulations.
• Building notice application: The owner or their agent informs the council or approved inspector of their intention to begin building work. The council’s inspector or an independent approved inspector will visit the site at various stages of the work to check compliance with building regulations.

Planning enforcement

10. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
11. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
12. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
13. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, paragraph 60)

What happened

14. Mrs X told the Council that building works to extend a nearby house were not in line with the approved plans. She said she feared the house would be used as a house in multiple occupation (HMO).
15. The Council told Mrs X that if the house was not being used yet, there was no breach of planning permission. The Council said it had called the owner and advised them they need planning permission to change the house into an HMO. It said its enforcement case would stay open until it reached a satisfactory conclusion.
16. The Council explained that it cannot consider changes to the internal layout of the extension. It said internal changes are not a breach of planning permission. The Council said it was the owner’s choice whether to use the Council’s building control service or to employ a private company for building control inspections.
17. The Council said it cannot get involved when an owner has used a private company. It told Mrs X that if the owner had changed structural walls during building, that was a matter for the private company the owner used for building control inspections.

Analysis

Building control

18. Mrs X complained the owner changed the internal layout when building the extension, including moving walls that she believed might be structural. She believed this was a breach of planning permission because the extension was not built in line with the approved plans. Mrs X believed that moving the internal walls may affect the structural integrity of the extension, which may impact her home.
19. The Council explained to Mrs X that it cannot consider changes to the internal layout of the extension. The Council explained that internal changes are not a breach of planning permission.
20. I agree with the Council: changes to internal layouts are not a breach of planning permission. The Council had no duty, obligation, or power to get involved in the internal changes to the building.
21. I note that Mrs X has been in contact with the private company in this case. This is the appropriate way to raise her concerns.
22. Mrs X also complained the owners used this private company to do building control inspections. She said the owner used a private company to circumnavigate Council inspections.
23. Owners have the right to choose to use private companies for building control inspections, rather than council services. Councils have no role to play when owners use private companies for building control inspections. So, the Council in this case had no role to play regarding these building control inspections.

Planning enforcement

24. Mrs X complained the property may be used as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) without the appropriate planning permission.
25. The Council said it cannot take planning enforcement action when the house is not yet in use. The Council is right to say this: it cannot take action about something that has not happened yet.
26. Mrs X said it will be too late for the Council to inspect when the property is already in use as an HMO. She said the owner can apply for retrospective planning permission.
27. Mrs X is right: owners can apply for retrospective planning permission to regularise any changes to buildings. This is an appropriate way for councils to consider such changes.
28. In this case, the Council has kept its planning enforcement investigation open, but it is on hold until the property is in use. Once it is in use, the Council told Mrs X it can assess whether the property needs planning permission for a change of use. This is appropriate.
29. The Council also reminded the owner that any change of use would need planning permission. This is positive and proactive, and is evidence of good practice.
30. I find the Council investigated the alleged breach of planning permission, which was the possible change of use from a dwelling to an HMO. The Council cannot take action until a change of use has happened. I find no fault with the way the Council handled its enforcement investigation. I note that the investigation is still ongoing because the house is not yet occupied.
31. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Wrong information from the Council

32. Mrs X complained the Council wrongly told her to fill in a form to report the planning breach. She said she waited a few months for a response but was then told she had filled in the wrong form.
33. Mrs X said she cannot remember which form she was initially told to complete: it may have been a complaint form rather than a planning enforcement form. She believed it was the planning team that told her to complete the wrong form.
34. I have seen no evidence of this.
35. Mrs X said her communication with the Council’s planning team about this issue has been ongoing since February 2025.
36. The Council said it has no record of any communication from Mrs X before she complained to its corporate complaints department in mid-March 2025.
37. The evidence I have seen shows Mrs X complained to the Council’s corporate complaints team in mid-March. On the same day, the Council replied, telling Mrs X that she needed to complain to the Council’s planning enforcement team first. It explained the enforcement process and gave her a link to the correct web page to report the planning breach.
38. In April, Mrs X reported the breaches of planning permission and made a formal complaint to the Council’s corporate complaints department.
39. Taking everything into account, I am not persuaded the Council told Mrs X to fill in the wrong type of form. And even if it had, I am not persuaded there is an injustice to Mrs X. This is because there was no significant delay in Mrs X reporting her allegation of a breach of planning permission to the correct department.
40. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman