Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council decision not to enforce against a developer for not installing a wider footway near his property, and how officers dealt with his complaint. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X or others to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint handling where we are not investigating the core matter giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a development next to an existing village. One of the conditions on the permission was for the developer to install a wider footway to serve the development. Mr X complains the Council:
1. has failed to enforce against the developer for not installing the footpath;
2. delayed in replying to his correspondence and complaint and did not reply to the substantive issues.
2. Mr X says the Council not enforcing regarding the footway impacts him, his family, guests and neighbours who use it. He says he has to walk in the road if someone is coming the other way, which is dangerous. Mr X says dealing with the Council has affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When a council receives a report of a planning breach their officers’ duty is to investigate. There is no duty on them to use the council’s enforcement powers against every breach. Councils’ enforcement powers are discretionary. The Council’s officers investigated Mr X’s report and decided not to take enforcement action against the developer regarding the wider footway.
6. Even if there were fault by the Council in its enforcement processes, we will not investigate. Mr X has used the current footway for several years, as have other pedestrians. We recognise Mr X and others may be disappointed the footway will not be wider. But Mr X and other users are in no worse practical position when walking next to the road than they were before the development. There is not enough significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matter complained of to warrant us investigating. We understand Mr X has been caused some distress from dealing with the Council. But it was his decision to pursue this matter. As for other users of the footway, the similar level of impact on them of it not being widened is not sufficient grounds for an investigation in the public interest.
7. Mr X also complains about the Council delaying and not properly dealing with his complaint to them. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the matter giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X or others to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core matter giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman