Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to two buildings he has built at his property. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation will not achieve the outcomes he seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to two buildings he has built at his property. He says there are numerous examples of fault by the Council which it has failed to adequately address when responding to his complaint and that he wants the Council to be instructed to close the two enforcement cases opened against him and to issue Lawful Development Certificates for the buildings. He also seeks compensation for stress, time and trouble and for an officer involved in his case to be stopped from considering any future complaints made by Bromley taxpayers.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X carried out work to erect two buildings at his property which he believed to be permitted development work and for which planning permission was not required. The Council received complaints about the structures and, on investigation, and having received no planning application for either structure, it decided to take enforcement action against Mr X.
5. Mr X complained to the Council about its many failings in dealing with the matter and he made SAR and FoI requests for information. He sought to have the enforcement cases against him closed and for the Council to issue Lawful Development Certificates for the buildings instead.
6. The Council responded to his complaint setting out its view on what had occurred and why it would not be taking the action he had requested. It acknowledged that initially it had been unaware permitted development rights had been removed back in the 1990s in connection with a change of use application. However, it said he had been advised the works were not permitted development and that ultimately it was the responsibility of the landowner to be sure that any works carried out were permitted development and to back this up by submitting a lawful development certificate application.
7. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

8. Mr X says his complaint centres on the Council’s failure to shut down its enforcement case against him and that he wants it to remove the recording of “Pending Consideration” from the enforcement case involving his property on its planning website. He says the Council previously told him the works are permitted development but it has confirmed its enforcement case continues and that it has issued Mr X with a Contravention Notice which will likely be followed by an Enforcement Notice.
9. While Mr X’s complaint covers numerous criticisms of the Council’s actions, the substantive issue is whether the work he has carried out is permitted development or not. Mr X complains about the length of time the Council has taken in dealing with the case but it is open to Mr X to resolve matters by either submitting a planning application for the work he has carried out or by submitting an application for a Lawful Development Certificate. If the Council refuses his application, he can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which will make the final determination on it.
10. We cannot direct a council to shut down an enforcement case or to issue a Lawful Development Certificate. Nor would we make a recommendation to limit the scope of work undertaken by a council officer.
11. We normally expect someone to refer to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection or FoI requests, and so we would not investigate these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation will not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman