Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further enforcement action against a neighbouring development. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making process, and we would not be able to achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure a neighbouring development complied with an enforcement notice it issued and was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate. Ms X said the Council ended its enforcement action, although the conditions of the notice had not been met in full.
2. Ms X said the development impacted their privacy and amenity at home and caused distress and frustration.

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; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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. Ms X said the Council did not comply with the decision of the Planning Inspectorate and did not take enforcement action against a neighbouring development as directed.
8. The Planning Inspectorate upheld the Council’s enforcement notice and set a timescale for the developer to comply. Ms X has correctly said the Council has not followed this direction.
9. The Council says it monitored the site during the enforcement period, and decided the work done to address the breach was not enough to meet the requirements of the notice. However, it also said it was satisfied the remaining harm was not significant enough to warrant further work, so it decided not to take further action.
10. Ms X wants the Council to comply with the Planning Inspectorate’s decision in full and explain its reasoning.
11. The available evidence shows the Council provided Ms X a detailed explanation for its decision. Although the outcome was not as the Planning Inspectorate directed the developer, the Council retains its legal discretion whether to enforce further. It chose not to in this case and explained why.
12. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
13. Given the Council has exercised its discretion not to continue enforcement action, we would be unable to achieve the outcome’s Ms X wants by investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making process, and we would not be able to achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman