Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to alleged breaches of planning control. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against building works at a neighbouring property. She says the works were unauthorised and caused problems with her party wall. Ms X says she reported the matter to the Council several times, but it did not take effective action.
2. Ms X also complains the Council delayed responding to her complaint. She says this caused her distress and disruption to her family.
3. Ms X wants the Council to apologise and take action to address the issues arising from the building works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. We 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

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X complained the Council delayed taking enforcement action against a neighbouring development. The Council told Ms X the works she complained about fell within permitted development rights and did not require planning permission. Therefore, it had no legal authority to take planning enforcement action. I do not consider any delay caused Ms X a significant injustice because the Council had no power to take planning enforcement action, even if it had acted sooner.
9. The Council said it had received a retrospective building control application. Building control approval is separate to planning permission and this does not give it powers to stop the work or take retrospective planning enforcement action. Ms X raised concerns about the safety of the building work. The Council said the building control application was being processed and that it would carry out any necessary inspections and testing to decide if the development complies with building regulations.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The Council considered the concerns raised by Ms X and explained the reasons for its position that the works were permitted development and did not require planning permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached that decision to justify an investigation.
11. Ms X complained the building works created issues with her party wall. The Council advised her that matters arising under the Party Wall Act are civil disputes between neighbouring property owners. It advised her to seek independent advice from a party wall surveyor and discuss any potential claim with her insurer.
12. Ms X complained the Council delayed handling her complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling as a stand-alone issue when we are not investigating the substantive complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman