Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the Information Commissioner’s Office is another body better placed to consider part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to take planning enforcement action at a neighbouring property. She said this had caused her injustice because the Council had previously taken enforcement action against her, in similar circumstances. She said this has caused her uncertainty and frustration. She would like the Council to apologise for distress caused, review the planning status of the neighbouring site and apply planning law consistently.

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. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against a development at a neighbouring property. She said the Council had not applied planning law consistently because it had taken enforcement action against her for a similar development at her property.
8. In its complaint response, the Council explained there were differences between the development at the neighbouring property, and the development at Mrs X’s property. The Council said it had carried out a planning enforcement investigation. The Council decided that although there had been a minor breach of planning control at the neighbouring property, it would not be expedient to pursue enforcement action.
9. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
10. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should only happen 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 or use.
11. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, paragraph 60).
12. While Mrs X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions councils make with which complainants are unhappy. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council investigated the case and decided the breach of planning control was minor and it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and there is not enough evidence to suggest fault affected it.
13. Mrs X also complained the Council had published her personal data. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for the data breach and told Mrs X it had carried out an investigation and taken steps to prevent recurrence.
14. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation.
15. We will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint because there is another body better placed to consider this matter. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify investigating and there is another body better placed to consider part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman