Summary: Dr B complained that the Council failed to ensure his neighbour’s extension was built in line with approved plans and conditions. He said this resulted in the extension encroaching onto his land and causing damage to his property. The Council also delayed responding to Dr B’s complaint. We found fault with the Council for poor complaint handling, but Dr B did not suffer significant injustice to warrant further investigation of this complaint.

The complaint

1. Dr B complained that Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (the Council) failed to ensure his neighbour’s extension was built in line with approved plans and conditions. He said this resulted in the extension encroaching onto his land and causing damage to his property. The Council also delayed responding to Dr B’s complaint, which he said caused him frustration and uncertainty.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have only investigated events relating to the Council’s decision to not take enforcement action against Dr B’s neighbour, and its handling of Dr B’s complaint.
7. I have not investigated matters relating to alleged damage of, or encroachment onto, Dr B’s property. This is because I consider it would be reasonable for Dr B to pursue these matters in the civil courts

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Dr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Dr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

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. 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

13. Dr B contacted the Council in February 2025 to raise concerns about a development on his neighbour’s property. He also complained to the Council in July 2025. He complained the extension to his neighbour’s property had been started in 2009 but had not been completed and breached planning permission. He raised concerns about the location of the build and foundations, and the lack of rendering and downpipes. He said it had caused damage to his property, including to a tree that is subject to a Tree Protection Order (TPO) and damp caused by drainage problems.
14. The Council responded to Dr B in July 2025 and said it would not investigate his complaint because it was about matters which had happened over 12 months ago. This response did not address all of the concerns raised by Dr B. He wrote to the Council in September 2025 to advise the problems were ongoing. He said he had only recently become aware of the extent of the damp problems following a survey on his property. The Council responded that its position had not changed and it would not investigate his concerns. Dr B complained to the Ombudsman in September 2025.
15. The Ombudsman wrote to the Council in February 2026 and asked it to consider Dr B’s concerns and provide a full response about his allegation of a breach of planning permission. The Council then began an investigation into Dr B’s concerns and carried out a site visit.
16. The Council responded to Dr B’s complaint at the end of March 2026. It confirmed it would not take enforcement action against Dr B’s neighbour at this time. It said the location of the build was only a few centimetres wider than the plans and so was within the margin of error for this type of development, and there was not enough evidence to show that the foundations caused damage to the tree. It explained the Council has no enforcement powers to ensure that a development is completed once it has been started. It also advised that matters relating to alleged damage, land encroachment, and drainage issues are civil legal matters.

Analysis

17. Alleged damage to, or encroachment onto, property caused by a neighbour’s building work would be a matter for private legal action by the property owner against the neighbour. Therefore, any matters relating to this are outside the scope of this investigation.
18. Planning enforcement is discretionary and guidance states that Councils should only take formal action when it is proportionate to do so. I have found no fault with the way the Council considered its decision to not take enforcement action against Dr B’s neighbour.
19. After Dr B first contacted the Council in February 2056 the Council did respond to some of his concerns, however it did not provide a clear response to all of the issues raised. In particular it did not address the question of whether the lack or location of downpipes amounted to a breach of planning control.
20. The Council should provide a clear and complete response to allegations of planning control breaches. This failure to address all Dr B’s points when first raised was fault.
21. However, I do not find that this fault caused Dr B a significant injustice. This is because, following our involvement, the Council investigated the outstanding issues and provided a response addressing all of Dr B’s concerns. It decided that no enforcement action was appropriate, and there is no evidence this outcome would have been different had the Council provided the full response earlier. I therefore will not recommend a personal remedy in this decision. This is because we only recommend remedies for injustice caused by the faults we identify.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman