Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a streetlight because he first complained to the Council about that issue in November 2017. The matter is late, and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate it now. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement action against a fence he built at the front of his property. Mr X has appealed the matter to the Planning Inspectorate, so the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate it.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s involvement with a streetlight near the front of his house, its advice to him about the listed status of part of his property, and its enforcement action against a fence he built without planning permission behind his front garden wall.
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. delayed in responding to his complaint about glare from a nearby streetlight;
2. gave him ambiguous advice about the listing status of his front garden wall;
3. has taken enforcement action against his fence.
3. Mr X says the matter has used up his time, caused him trouble, distress and upset.
4. Mr X wants the Council to:

• apologise to him;
• compensate him for time and trouble, and lack of service;
• cancel the enforcement notice;
• negotiate with him about lowering the fence;
• give him definitive confirmation of the various listing limitations and permissions he has for his house, its curtilage and surrounding buildings, or pay for an independent assessment of the listing issue by Historic England.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The Planning Inspector (PINS) acts on behalf of the responsible government minister. The PINS considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

7. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The PINS acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply;
• discussed the issues with Mr X.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr X first complained to the Council about the streetlight issue in June 2017. The light had been changed as part of a scheme of works to install new LED bulbs. The Council accepts its systems for responding to Mr X’s concerns led to delays in responding to him and doing work to the light. Mr X says he received the Council’s reply in December 2018, by which time he had built his fence. Officers then worked to solve the light problem from December 2018, doing so in April 2019.
10. Mr X wants the Ombudsman to investigate this matter. The Ombudsman will not do so. He expects people to raise a complaint with him within 12 months of them becoming aware of the matters complained of. Mr X knew of the streetlight issue in June 2017 and complained to the Ombudsman about it in July 2020. So the complaint is late.
11. I have considered whether there are good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion to investigate this late complaint now. There are no good reasons to do so. I say this because:
• the Council explained to Mr X in 2018 that it had changed its processes to improve the way it dealt with reports of problems with the new LED lights, such as Mr X’s. That work is now complete, so there is no service improvement an Ombudsman investigation would now seek here;
• Mr X confirms the Council resolved his streetlight problem in April 2019, so there is no practical outcome the Ombudsman could achieve for him. I do not consider use of the Ombudsman’s services to investigate this settled matter would be justified.
12. Mr X says the streetlight matter arose again in late 2019, in relation to the enforcement issues. Mr X may have raised the issue in 2019 as a justification for building his front garden fence in 2018. But the evidence still remains that Mr X knew of the streetlight problem from at least June 2017 onwards. Any reference to it in Mr X’s later dealings with the Council does not reset or override that 2017 date.
13. Mr X seeks to link three issues:
• the Council’s delay in dealing with the streetlight;
• the Council’s advice to him on the ‘curtilage listing’ status of his front garden wall; and
• the Council’s enforcement action against his front garden fence.
14. Mr X says the delay in resolving the streetlight issue resulted in him building the fence in 2018, to try to prevent the glare. He also says he built the fence on the understanding of advice given to him by the Council that it was not affected by the listed building status of his main house, that it was not ‘curtilage listed’. He says he built it slightly taller than the one metre height for fences adjacent to the highway to reduce the impact the light was having on his house at that time.
15. The Council took formal enforcement action against Mr X regarding the fence in 2020. Mr X has appealed to the PINS against the notice. It is now a matter for the PINS appeal to consider the enforcement notice, the planning situation, any relevant listed building or curtilage issues, and any reasons Mr X puts forward for the installation of the fence. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate this issue because Mr X had and has used his right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman:
• should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the streetlight because the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion to investigate it now;
• cannot investigate his complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement action. This is because Mr X had and has used his right of appeal to the PI on that matter, which means the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman