Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an alleged breach of planning control of a neighbouring annexe. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council refused a Certificate of Lawful Development (CLD) for an annexe as an independent house. Shortly after this the Council closed a planning enforcement investigation claiming no clear breach of planning control. Mr and Mrs X say the Council failed to properly investigate occupancy of the annexe or alleged unauthorised changes. They want the Council to reopen the enforcement investigation, act on any breaches identified, and pay compensation for their distress and time and trouble.

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))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council explained to Mr and Mrs X it refused the CLD application because the applicant had not shown that the annexe had been used continuously as an independent house for at least ten years. The Council said this did not mean a breach of planning control had been established. It explained that, for enforcement purposes, it must consider the available evidence and decide whether a breach has occurred and whether enforcement action is necessary.
7. The Council carried out a site visit and considered the available evidence, including council tax records and utility arrangements. It decided the evidence did not show the annexe was acting as an independent home. The Council noted that separate council tax billing and some separate utility arrangements did not, by themselves, prove the annexe was physically and functionally separate from the main house.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The evidence shows the Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s concerns and based on the information available gave reasons for its conclusions. The Council was entitled to exercise its professional judgement when assessing whether a breach of planning control existed. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman