Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement investigation, which has resulted in the complainant’s building works becoming liable for the community infrastructure levy. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of an enforcement investigation into building works at her property.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications for the property, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is very unhappy the Council requested a retrospective planning application for the demolition and building works at her property, meaning they are now liable for the community infrastructure levy (CIL).
6. 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.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled this planning enforcement case, so the Ombudsman will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• although Mrs X had previously obtained a planning permission and a certificate of lawfulness for extensions, these did not cover demolition of most of the existing property.
• the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement when deciding to issue a temporary stop notice and request a retrospective planning application for the replacement dwelling.
• the Council appears to have acted in accordance with the CIL regulations, particularly with regard to the development commencing prior to the granting of planning permission.
8. In addition, the Ombudsman has no power to direct the removal of the CIL charge, so an investigation could not achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman