Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not act against an alleged breach of planning control by his neighbour. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, there is not enough injustice and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not considering the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not act against an alleged breach of planning control by his neighbour. He says the Council should have prevented his neighbour from using outbuildings as residential accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X in his complaint and the Council’s responses to him.
5. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr X, who had an opportunity to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. In mid-2019 Mr X’s neighbour converted a summer house and shed to provide extra living accommodation. Mr X complained to the Council that the buildings were being let as separate accommodation in breach of planning rules. He also says the accommodation was of a poor standard and not fit for occupation.
7. The Council’s housing team inspected the properties and assessed the buildings for any housing hazards. The Council decided there were no serious hazards and that discretionary enforcement action was not justified.
8. The Council’s planning team used the reports from the housing team to decide if there had been a breach of planning control. Since the buildings were built more than 4 years ago, the Council decided it could not take action about the buildings themselves. It also decided, based on the reports and conversations with the owner of the property, that the buildings were not used as separate accommodation, so there was no breach of planning control.
9. In November 2019 Mr X complained to the Council that he did not think it had investigated properly and was not happy with its explanations. The Council replied in August 2020 that it was satisfied it had made the decision correctly and residential use of the buildings had ended in early 2020. The Council also apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s second complaint.

Analysis

10. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules or housing legislation have been breached. We would expect a council to investigate alleged breaches and consider the evidence before making a decision.
11. The information I have seen suggests the Council investigated Mr X’s report, inspected the buildings and interviewed the owner. Based on its investigations, the Council decided there had been no breach of planning rules.
12. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because the Council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. The evidence suggests the Council took the steps we would expect to investigate Mr X’s report, so we would be unlikely to find fault with how the Council reached it decision.
13. The Ombudsman must also consider the injustice caused to complainants. While I appreciate Mr X was frustrated at the Council’s refusal to take action, there is no evidence of other injustice caused to Mr X. The residential use of the buildings ended in early 2020, so any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
14. The Council accepts it took a long time to respond to Mr X’s second complaint and has apologised. The Ombudsman’s view is it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not considering the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, there is not enough injustice and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not considering the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman