Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to act when she reported planning enforcement concerns. We found fault because the Council said her reports were accidentally overlooked. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and investigate her concerns. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council failed to investigate her planning enforcement reports about a neighbouring development. She accepts the building control issues are outside the Council’s remit but says the Council wrongly rejected her complaint without addressing the planning matters it is responsible for. She wants the Council to confirm whether it has considered these issues and, if not, to investigate each alleged breach and take enforcement action where needed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In May 2025 Miss X contacted the Council with concerns about a neighbouring development. She suspected several planning breaches, and she also raised issues about building control functions.
6. The Council explained the developer had appointed a private Registered Building Control Approver (RBCA), over which the Council has no jurisdiction, and therefore said it could not consider the Building Regulations issues raised. Miss X queried why the Council had not considered the planning breaches she had raised but she got no response.
7. We asked the Council why it had not considered the planning enforcement issues Miss X had raised, as these remained its responsibility. The Council told us Miss X’s planning complaint had been logged but was then overlooked during a system change. Although the complaint remained open, no follow‑up action had been taken.
8. Based on the evidence I have seen, Miss X first raised potential planning breaches in May 2025, yet the Council did not investigate until we made enquiries. This delay is fault and does not meet the timescales set out in the Council’s enforcement procedure.
9. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice cause to Miss X by the avoidable delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

10. To its credit the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint. It has already restarted work on Miss X’s planning enforcement concerns and contacted her about this.
11. Within one month of this final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by its avoidable delay in considering her planning enforcement concerns. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology;
• make a payment of £150 to Miss X for the injustice caused by the avoidable delay from May 2025, when she first reported her planning breach concerns.

12. The Council has also agreed to write to Miss X within two weeks of this final decision to formally confirm receipt of her planning enforcement complaint and provide information on likely timescales for progressing its consideration.
13. The Council should provide us with evidence that the above recommendations have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman