Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr Y has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case at a site near his home. He says the Council failed to take enforcement action and did not keep him informed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained to the Council about the unauthorised change of use of a residential property near his home. The Council investigated this and found that the new use of the property did not have planning permission. It invited the site owner to make a retrospective application to regularise the breach. This is not unusual for Councils to do.
7. The Council refused the retrospective planning application because of the detrimental impact it would have on highway safety. It issued an enforcement notice to the site owner. The site owner appealed this, which placed a hold on the Council being able to take enforcement action. The appeal was dismissed, but the Council was advised by the Planning Inspectorate to be cautious in its approach when taking enforcement action because of the nature of the use of the property.
8. The Council worked with the site owner until the enforcement notice had been complied with. After part-compliance had been achieved, the site owner challenged the Council and said there had been a material change in the circumstances. It was entitled to do this. The enforcement was placed on a short hold whilst the Council sought legal advice. It refuted the change and continued to pursue the enforcement case.
9. The Council continued working with the property owner until the enforcement case had been fully complied with. It formally closed the enforcement case, and informed Mr Y of this.
10. Mr Y is unhappy with how the Council dealt with the breach. But it is not unusual for enforcement investigations to go on for a long time, especially when someone uses their right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the planning breach and continued to progress the matter until the breach was resolved. The Council has explained why it did not take immediate action following the outcome of the appeal and it was entitled to allow the site owner time to comply with the notice once the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
11. Mr Y said the Council did not keep him updated. He is also unhappy with how it dealt with his complaint. But I do not consider the personal injustice suffered because of these issues significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. We also will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling when we have decided not to investigate the main issues complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr Y has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman