Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on reports of breaches of planning control, building regulations and House of Multiple Occupation licensing. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office with his concerns about access to information. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate a complaint about a failure to follow the complaint procedure, when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for his mother, Mrs Y. He says the Council failed to respond to their concerns about a house of multiple occupation (HMO) next door to Mrs Y’s home. He says the Council:
• Failed to open an enforcement investigation until he complained.
• Failed to respond to concerns about breaches of building control.
• Failed to respond to requests for information made under the Freedom of Information Act; and
• Failed to respond to his complaint according to its complaint procedure.
   

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to my enquiries the Council has confirmed the following:
• An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness to change the use of the property from a single residential home to an HMO was received in January 2026 and refused in May 2026.
• There is a continuing, open planning enforcement case. The owner has made internal changes which could enable the property to be used as an HMO. However, the property is not being occupied as an HMO.
• As there is no unauthorised HMO use, there is no breach of planning control to serve an Enforcement Notice against. Officers will continue to check the site.
• An application for an HMO license for the property has been withdrawn.
• Following a site inspection, the owner has been instructed to remove rubbish from the front garden, maintain the garden and repair a brick wall. The owner has confirmed contractors have been engaged to complete these works.
• The owner is not using the Council’s building control service. The Council says it has previously advised Mr X to contact the appointed party wall surveyor and the Registered Building Control Approved Inspector with his concerns.
7. I understand Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s actions. However, from the information I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Party wall matters and allegations of damage to Mrs Y’s property are civil matters between Mrs Y and her neighbour and are not for the Council to resolve. Also, concerns about building control matters should be directed to the approved inspector instructed by her neighbour.
8. Mr X also complains the Council failed to respond to his requests for information made under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations. We consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about these matters. The ICO is the body which upholds information rights. The process is straightforward and free to use.
9. Finally, Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his complaints according to its complaint procedure. The Council has apologised for the delays in its responses. While we expect councils to follow their complaint procedures, we do not consider it a good use of public finds to investigate this point alone.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with reports of breaches of planning control and building control regulations.
• Property damage and party wall matters are civil issues between Mrs Y and her neighbour; and
• It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO about access to information concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman