Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take planning enforcement action against the complainant’s neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has decided not to take planning enforcement action against her neighbour for carrying out works without obtaining planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy the Council has not taken further action against her neighbour.
6. But 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 whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of 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.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision in this case, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching his view, I am mindful that:
• planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development. Councils may therefore decide to take informal action or not to act at all.
• the Council conducted a site visit, and took measurements and photographs.
• the Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement that planning permission would likely by granted if an application was submitted, and that it would not be expedient to pursue further action if no application was forthcoming.
• any concerns about the structure being attached to Mrs X’s property would amount to a private, civil dispute between her and the neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to take further planning enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman