Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to take planning enforcement action in relation to a neighbouring development. Miss X believes the development has breached permitted development rights.
2. Miss X said this caused a negative impact to her mental health and concern about the potential impact to her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We consider 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
  (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. Miss X said the Council did not consider the impact a neighbouring development would have on her home due to a change in ground level, when considering its enforcement options. She said it created worry about potential drainage and boundary issues.
8. Miss X also said the Council redefined the development and said it was a change in ground level. She said this suggested a lack of understanding about the issue.
9. The available evidence suggests the Council have considered the potential impact to Miss X’s property and explained the reason for redefining the development to a change of ground level.
10. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach.
11. The Council appears to have considered its enforcement powers but decided it was not proportionate to use them here. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant our involvement.
12. 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, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
13. Miss X wants the Council to reconsider a retrospective planning application and whether enforcement action should be taken. The Council did this and set out its reasons for not taking further action in its complaint responses. Therefore, no worthwhile outcome achievable would be achievable by us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and there would be no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman