Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take action against a neighbouring property owner for false statements made in their application for a certificate of lawful development. This is because the decision does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has not taken action against the owner of a neighbouring property for making a false statement as part of their application for a certificate of lawful development. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and believes the Council should revoke the certificate or prosecute the owner. He suggests such action is needed to reduce the likelihood of similar issues in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council’s decision not to take any action against the owner of the neighbouring property does not directly or significantly affect Mr X. It also raises no matters of significant public interest. We will not therefore investigate it further.
5. The Council has explained the statement concerned does not affect its decision to issue the certificate of lawful development and there is therefore no basis to revoke it. But even if it did, the purpose of the certificate is to confirm the development concerned does not require planning permission. The certificate itself does not convey any rights on Mr X’s neighbour to carry out development they could not do anyway; it simply confirmed the development proposed was permitted under the relevant legislation and did not require planning permission. Revoking the certificate, which is a potentially costly process for the Council, would therefore serve no useful purpose.
6. Mr X clearly considers the owner should not be allowed to get away with making a false statement but the Council has explained the reasons it will not prosecute them and this decision does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s decision does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman