Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning development next door to her father’s property. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X, on behalf of her deceased father, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning development next door to her father’s property. She says it granted planning permission before a Party Wall Agreement was in place, did not take her father’s health into consideration and did not give prior notification that the boundary fence would be removed and excavation work undertaken. This caused distress as well as inconvenience and travel costs associated with dealing with the situation.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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. (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 Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Before his death, Ms X’s father, who I refer to as Mr Y, lived in a Council property and next door to a privately owned property. Mr Y suffered from dementia and a number of health issues.
5. The owners of the next-door property applied for and obtained from the Council planning permission to build an extension. They then served notice on the Council as the adjoining owner under the Part Wall Act 1996 which notified the Council of the intention to carry out works which would affect the boundary between their property and Council property.
6. Prior to starting work the next-door owners should have issued a Party Wall Award. However, they did not do so and work began to remove fencing and excavate ground on the boundary of Mr Y’s property without it.
7. When the Council was made aware of this by a member of Mr Y’s family, it contacted the owners and instructed them to stop work immediately and restore the boundary. A Party Wall Award was subsequently issued.
8. Dissatisfied with its handling of matters, Ms X complained to the Council about this, encroachment over Mr Y’s boundary and about an issue with a discharge pipe from his boiler which had to be repositioned.
9. In responding to the complaint, the Council set out the Party Wall procedure and said it had acted as soon as it had become aware work was being carried out in advance of an award. It said the owners had reasonably requested the re-positioning of Mr Y’s boiler pipe to allow the extension to be built. It accepted there had been some initial confusion about what works were required but that the pipe repositioning had then been completed by a Council contractor. It investigated the claim that there had been a boundary encroachment but concluded this was minimal and that the extension had been built in accordance with the planning consent. While it acknowledged Mr Y had been caused distress when fencing had been taken down and excavations carried out without notice, it told Ms X it could not be held responsible for the actions of the owners and so would not pay her compensation.

Assessment

10. It is clear from Ms X that Mr Y and his family were caused distress when the owners of the property next door to Mr Y began carrying out works without notice and without the proper Party Wall Award in place. However, these were the actions of the owners and not of the Council. The Council acted as soon as it became aware of the problem and I see no grounds on which a recommendation for compensation for Ms X’s travel expenses and the distress caused would be based.
11. Councils are not under a duty to take into account the health of neighbours in deciding whether to grant planning permission and a Party Wall Award does not have to be in place before permission can be granted.
12. In responding to my draft decision, Ms X sent a video of her father’s garden showing a section of the fencing removed and an excavation ditch which she said it was lucky he did not fall into. However, as already noted, it was the owners who undertook this work and not the Council and it is the Council which is the body within our jurisdiction and whose actions I have considered.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman