Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to take planning enforcement action against an alleged breached of planning control at a holiday park. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against an alleged breach of planning control concerning the ‘overspill’ of static caravans from one part of a holiday park to another.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)
4. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a planning enforcement 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. Here, the Council has considered what Mrs X said and explained why, in its view, the ‘overspill’ of some static caravans from one part of the site to another does not amount to a breach of planning control. This is a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach, even if Mrs X disagrees with the conclusion reached.
8. As such, I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision not to pursue planning enforcement action, so the Ombudsman will not investigate the matter.
9. And even if there was some evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, this has not, from the Ombudsman’s perspective, caused Mrs X a significant injustice. So, the Ombudsman would not start an investigation into her complaint for this reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing her a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman