Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council carried out an enforcement investigation of planning breach at her property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms B to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, complains about the way the Council carried out an enforcement investigation in relation to a breach of planning control at her property. She says the investigation was not carried out in accordance with the Council’s enforcement policy or the relevant codes of practice for exercising right of entry. She says the Council’s responses to her complaints were inadequate and that she and her husband have been caused great stress by these events.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Ms B and watched her video of the enforcement visit to her property by a Council officer. I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said and the additional information she provided.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council became aware of a possible planning breach at Ms B’s property and instigated an enforcement investigation.
5. One of its officers, Mr X, visited Ms B to see her property and assess the breach as part of his investigation. Ms B’s partner videoed the visit and this shows Mr X showing Ms B his Council identification and discussing matters with her as they walk around the outside of the property.
6. Having completed its investigation, while there had been a breach of the planning regulations, the Council decided to take no further action because of the length of time the breach had existed.
7. In the meantime, Ms B submitted a formal complaint to the Council, setting out her dissatisfaction with what had taken place. She referred to a complaint made by a third party about the matter the subject of the investigation as having been written after the visit and so in breach of Council policy which requires a written complaint at the outset. She set out in detail why she believed Council policy and the relevant codes of practise had been breached.
8. The Council responded to her complaints but concluded it and Mr X had properly followed the correct procedures and that the investigation had been carried out in a fair, reasonable and proportionate manner. However, the Council did confirm that the photos Mr X had taken on his own mobile during the visit had been deleted and that in future it would be more appropriate for officers to be provided with cameras rather than use their own phones to take photos.
9. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms B complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Assessment

10. I understand Ms B has spent time and trouble pursuing her complaint and that she and her husband were distressed by events. However, we do not investigate every complaint we receive and, having reviewed the information provided, including the video of the visit, it is my view that there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms B to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. This is the case regardless of whether the Council approached the third party after the visit had taken place or not and even though Ms B feels she has not received a response to all the concerns she raised with the Council.
11. In responding to my draft decision Ms B has repeated her concerns, including those about the way the visit came about, what information was provided to her about the legal rights of the officer to carry out the visit and about the behaviour of the officer. However, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation and we will not pursue the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms B to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman