Enforcement


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Redcar & Cleveland Council (18 007 129)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 19-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X says the Council allowed an unreasonable amount of time for the owner of a neighbouring property to comply with the requirements of a section 215 notice. She also complains about the Council's handling of her complaints. There was fault by the Council because of delay in taking enforcement action and a poor service given to the complainant. However, the injustice suffered by Ms X is not so serious to warrant further pursuit of the matter by the Ombudsman.

  • Surrey Heath Borough Council (17 017 009)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 18-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault in its handling of building control and planning issues relating to a property he bought. The Ombudsman has not found fault by the Council in the parts of the complaint he has investigated and therefore he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • Liverpool City Council (18 001 912)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 15-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council's delay in taking enforcement action about a breach of a planning permission for a building in a conservation area. Also that the Council did not respond to his complaint. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr Y for his time and trouble and frustration.

  • London Borough of Croydon (18 007 846)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 15-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council failed to conduct neighbour notification for proposals received to develop a neighbouring property. Mr Y also complains about the Council's subsequent handling of the planning applications received. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of procedural fault in the matters complained about and does not uphold the complaint.

  • Uttlesford District Council (17 005 173)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 13-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his concerns about noise nuisance and a breach of planning control at a commercial site near his home. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Mole Valley District Council (18 001 865)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 12-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr B has complained that the Council has failed to deal properly with breaches of planning control from a nearby site which have caused noise nuisance and light pollution. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way that the Council has responded to Mr B's concerns since he complained about breaches of condition in July 2016. I have not investigated Mr B's complaints about matters prior to this because they are out of time.

  • Rother District Council (18 000 220)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 05-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly responded to his requests for action on breaches of planning conditions at a development next to his home and should not have approved a planning application. He says he has been put to unnecessary time and trouble pursuing these issues; the failures have meant the ecological richness of the site has been reduced and there has been a negative impact on his home. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in not properly communicating its enforcement decisions to Mr X and this caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has apologised to Mr X for these failings and is taking action to prevent them happening again. In view of this the Ombudsman does not propose the Council takes any further action.

  • South Hams District Council (18 009 856)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 01-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control, causing her stress in having to pursue poor quality tree planting on a new development. The Council was at fault for discharging a planning condition without a necessary meeting having taken place, but it has properly considered if there are grounds to take enforcement action and acted accordingly. The fault has thus not caused Mrs X injustice.

  • Folkestone & Hythe District Council (18 012 504)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 31-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains of unreasonable delay by the Council in investigating a report he made of a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property. There was unreasonable delay by the Council. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice to the complainant by completing its planning enforcement investigation within four weeks. It also agreed a time and trouble payment to Mr X.

  • Shropshire Council (18 016 009)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 25-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Council failed to provide the remedy It agreed to provide in respect of an earlier complaint investigated by the Ombudsman. On the evidence so far seen, the Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council, for which further remedy is now recommended.

;