Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council planning decision made over 20 years ago and its later response to ground stability concerns. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reason why Dr Z could not have complained to us sooner.

The complaint

1. Dr Z complains the Council approved and signed off a housing development despite evidence of ground instability. He says two significant ground collapses later occurred, but the Council failed to investigate properly, take action or warn residents. He also says the Council cannot now locate key records showing how it assessed the risks and reached its decisions. Dr Z says he would not have bought the property if the Council had carried out the appropriate assessments and disclosed the relevant information. He says this has caused ongoing anxiety and uncertainty about the safety of his home. He wants the Council to order an independent assessment of the site, carry out any necessary remedial works, recover the costs from those responsible, apologise for its failings and provide appropriate financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council granted planning permission for the development in 1998 and 1999. After two ground collapses occurred on the site in 2014, residents raised concerns with the Council. In response, the Council commissioned a geotechnical report in 2015 to assess the risk of further collapses.
8. After purchasing his property in 2017, Dr Z obtained the 2015 report and complained to the Council in 2020. He said the Council should not have approved the development and should have taken further action after the report identified risks.
9. In October 2020, the Council issued a final response. It advised Dr Z it had acted appropriately when granting planning permission, overseeing Building Control matters and responding to the ground collapses. It also said there was no statutory nuisance requiring enforcement action. The Council did not uphold the complaint and signposted Dr Z to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
10. After receiving the Council's complaint response, Dr Z continued corresponding with the Council. During this time, the Council confirmed it could not locate some historical records. However, it maintained its position it had acted appropriately, and no further action was required. It reiterated that Dr Z could complain to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied and advised he could seek legal advice if he wished to pursue a liability claim.
11. We normally expect people to complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue. The Council issued its final response and signposted Dr Z to us in October 2020. Although he continued to correspond with the Council after that, it consistently maintained the same position. Dr Z did not complain to us until March 2026. Therefore, we will not investigate his complaint because it is late and I have seen no good reason why he could not have complained to us sooner.
12. In addition, even if we investigated, it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome Dr Z seeks. Questions about liability, responsibility for remedial works and compensation are matters better suited to the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Dr Z’s complaint, because it is late and I see no good reason why he could not have complained to us sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman