Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision against taking enforcement action. The complaint is late with no good reason for not complaining sooner. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process, or significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider enforcement action against temporary fencing or register a formal complaint about the matter.
2. He said the fencing restricts the footway and impacts all residents of the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X said he has lived in the area for three years. He also said other residents have raised concerns about the same issue. The fencing in question has been in place since 2015. This indicates Mr X has been aware of the longstanding issue and there is no good reason for him not to have complained to us sooner.
9. The Council refused to further consider Mr X’s complaint under its complaints procedure. However, this was only after he had been provided with detailed responses from its planning department. The Council correctly signposted Mr X to the County Council for Highways complaints.
10. The Council considered its powers to take enforcement action. It decided against taking enforcement action and committed to keeping the development under review. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached this decision.
11. There is no indication Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice that would warrant an investigation.
12. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the complaint is late with no good reason for not complaining sooner. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process, or significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman