Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application and its failure to take action over unsafe building works. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council failed to consult with her on an amendment her neighbour made to a planning application and that it failed to take action over unsafe building works. She says as a result the amendment has led to damage to her property and she also says that her safety had been put at risk. She says the Council has been dismissive of her complaints and is refusing to help.

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
• 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, including the Council’s final response to her complaint. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a single storey rear extension. Ms X objected on the grounds that there was insufficient space between her property and the proposed extension. The application was amended but the Council did not re-consult because it did not consider the change to have been significant. Having considered the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties, including Ms X’s, the Council granted permission.
5. Concerned that the amendment and a minor breach of the approved plans had resulted in water damage to her property, Ms X complained to the Council. She said given the impact of the amendment on drainage from both properties, the Council should have re-consulted.
6. Ms X also complained that the Council’s Building Control Service had not properly monitored the works because it had failed to act when her safety had been put at risk by unsafe internal works.
7. The Council responded by explaining it was common for single storey extensions to be built adjacent to garden boundaries and why it had not re-consulted on the amendment. While it noted Ms X’s claims of property damage by her neighbour’s works, it explained these were not planning matters to be resolved by the use of its enforcement powers but rather civil matters to be resolved between the parties. It referred Ms X to the Party Wall Act which provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes between neighbours around shared walls and boundaries.
8. With regard to the safety of the works undertaken by her neighbour, the Council said its Building Control Service, which acts to check on compliance with the Building Regulations, had satisfied itself that there had been no structural risk at any stage of the works. The Service had asked the neighbour to locate water pipes to prevent discharge on to Ms X’s property but said these recommendations were goodwill suggestions only and not enforceable. The Council concluded by sympathising with Ms X’s situation but stated that it appeared the problems she had described had arisen due to the Party Wall Act not having been followed.

Back to top

Assessment

9. While Ms X’s property has clearly been damaged by her neighbour’s building works, I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council in how it dealt with matters.
10. The Council was not obliged to re-consult with Ms X on a minor amendment. The Council has explained that property damage and encroachment are civil and not planning or building control matters. Ms X says the Council patronisingly told her to use the Party Wall Act but it properly referred her to the legislation which covers the issues affecting her.
11. Building Control officers do not supervise building works and in this case they satisfied themselves there had been no risk to safety by the works being undertaken. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way they exercised their professional judgement.
12. In response to our draft decision Ms X said that had she objected to the amendment, permission for the extension would have been refused. She also told us she felt the Council’s inspection was inadequate because it had not checked that insertion of steel beams was correct.
13. There is no evidence that had Ms X objected, the Council’s decision would have been different. Building Control visited the site after the beams’ insertion and was satisfied that the works had been carried out safely. There is no evidence that its inspection was inadequate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault 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