Summary: We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint about a lack of planning enforcement action taken by the Council. This is because there is not enough fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action when his neighbour carried out works without planning permission. He says the works were unsightly and exposed groundwater directly into his garden and then into the road. He says this has resulted in a loss of privacy and significant damage to his property.

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

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. Dr X says his neighbour excavated land to lower the ground level and built a wall without planning permission two years ago. He says it was unsightly, caused a loss of privacy and caused water to flood across his garden and into the street, causing significant damage.
6. Dr X contacted the Council. At first, it said the work was permitted development and did not need planning permission. It told Dr X to contact his insurers or to seek legal advice. It told him to contact other departments about damage to the road and the rerouting of a culvert.
7. Dr X contacted the Council again and it said the work did need planning permission. It said it had received two planning applications in relation to the works and would consider enforcement action after these had been decided. It told Dr X to contact other departments about land drainage issues.
8. Dr X complained. The Council agreed with Dr X that its communication was poor and apologised. It said it should have provided a more coordinated response. It reminded its staff about the need to consider how it responded when multiple departments are involved.
9. The Council considered the planning applications submitted by Dr X’s neighbour. It decided the wall to the front of the property was out of keeping with the area, and the wall to the side may result in overbearing and loss of light for Dr X. The application included plans to reduce the height, which the Council decided would address these concerns.
10. Dr X complained about the lack of enforcement. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding not to take enforcement action.
11. The Council considered drainage information as part of the planning application. It decided it had no concerns about drainage. There is no fault in how it made the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman