Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take planning enforcement action against a window inserted at a property next to the complainant’s home. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against his neighbour for inserting a ground floor, side window which was not shown on the approved plans for works at the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We also cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council.
• information about the planning applications for the neighbouring property, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above applies to Mr X’s complaint. This is because he was aware of the Council’s decision not to pursue enforcement action in July 2024. Yet he did not contact the Ombudsman until October 2025. I see no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider this late complaint now.
7. And even if this time restriction did not apply, 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 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.
8. Here, the Council has explained the window benefits from permitted development rights, despite what was shown on the approved plans for works at the property, so it could not take any planning enforcement action. And if Mr X thinks the window encroaches over his property, then that would be a private, civil matter between him and the neighbour; the Council would not be involved with such matters.
9. The Council has also apologised for the time taken to inform Mr X of its decision on the planning enforcement case. I am satisfied this was an appropriate way to address this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have complained to us sooner and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its planning enforcement decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman