Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to take planning enforcement action where somebody erected an outbuilding that exceeded permitted development rights. Mr X also complained the Council did not visit the site.
2. Mr X said this impacted his amenity and created a health and safety risk.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its complaint response, the Council accepts the outbuilding Mr X complained about exceeded permitted development height limits. However, it said the breach was minimal and therefore enforcement action would be disproportionate.
8. The Council also acknowledged it did not carry out a site visit. It said it did not consider a visit necessary because it had enough information available to make a decision.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
10. The available evidence suggests the Council properly investigated the potential breach of planning. It then decided enforcement action would not be appropriate because the breach was not significant enough. There does not appear to be fault in how it reached this decision and therefore we cannot question it. For this reason, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman