Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of a complaint regarding building control and planning enforcement issues at a property next to complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused the complainant a significant injustice, and it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s associated complaint handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handing of his complaint regarding the planning enforcement and building control departments’ consideration of an unlawful extension at a neighbouring property. In particular, Mr X says the Council should carry out a full investigation into the possible corruption of these two departments.

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
• any fault has not directly caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

4. In relation to the above, it is important to note the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. 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.
5. And we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the Council.
6. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their Stage 1 and 2 complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application submitted for works at the neighbouring property, as available on the Council website.
• Mr X’s comments on previous versions of this statement.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I appreciate Mr X says he is complaining to the Ombudsman about the Council’s handling of his complaint. But the Ombudsman must also consider the substantive, underlying matters that he was complaining to the Council about (e.g. the action or inaction of the planning enforcement and building control teams).
9. I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused Mr X a significant personal injustice, so we would not pursue these matters. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Planning and building control operate under entirely separate regulatory regimes. So, we would not necessarily expect an officer from one service area to identify issues/problems about the other service area. Notwithstanding this, I note the Council says that in the intervening years, procedures have been put in place to ensure there is increased co-ordination and communication between the two departments.
• The Council has explained to Mr X why it believes it cannot now take action in relation to the planning enforcement issues raised. These are professional judgements the Council is entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with them.
• Mr X moved into the property after the works were complete. As such, we cannot hold the Council responsible for any claimed injustice which Mr X could have avoided by not moving in next door.
10. And with reference to paragraph 6 above, as we are not investigating the substantive, underlying issues that Mr X had originally contacted the Council about, it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused him a significant injustice, and it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman