Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s planning officers. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained Council officers deliberately overstepped their authority and trespassed on his property causing damage. Mr X says he has been significantly impacted by the Council’s actions, and it should apologise and compensate him.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for planning permission to develop his property. Officers from the Council carried out a site visit to assess the proposals. Mr X was not present during the visit and says he was not told the officers would be attending. Mr X says the Council had no right to enter his property and caused damage.
6. The Council says it has the power to enter a property under sections 324 and 325 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s interpretation of the Act. But it is not for the Ombudsman to decide which interpretation of the law is correct and the Council has explained why it considered it had the right of entry. It has also apologised for not informing Mr X of the visit in advance and said Mr X should provide further evidence in relation to the alleged damage caused by the officers. I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to this response or achieve anything more for Mr X. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to pursue a claim for property damage through the court. The courts are better placed to decide whether the Council has been negligent and is liable for damage.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman