Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decision on a neighbouring development and the unauthorised use of his private parking land by motorists. There is not enough evidence of a direct causal link between the Council’s planning decision and Mr X’s claimed injustice of trespassing motorists to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks, and it is reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X has a property with parking to the rear. Neighbouring properties also have designated parking in the same area, next to Mr X’s parking land.
2. Mr X complains:
1. the Council granted permission to a neighbour to extend their property, despite his concerns about the reduction in parking provision;
2. the Council’s complaint process was not transparent or independent.
3. Mr X says the Council’s decision to grant the permission resulted in the parking reducing to an inadequate level. He says people now regularly park on his land, up to three vehicles, restricting his access to his coal and wood storage, and affecting his ability to park in his own spaces.
4. Mr X wants:
• the planning permission revoked; or
• the Council to pay him so he can secure a court injunction to prevent parking trespass on his land, a cost he estimates after taking advice to be around £20,000.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

6. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

What I found

8. Parking provision is a material planning matter. The Council considered the parking issue for the relevant properties. One property had and retained three parking places, and another retained one space, within a garage. Officers took the view that the parking provision did not give grounds for refusal. That was a view officers were entitled to reach using their professional judgement. I do not consider the Ombudsman has grounds to go behind that decision.
9. Mr X’s claimed injustice is trespass by motorists passing over or parking on his land. Trespass is not a material planning issue but a private legal matter. I realise Mr X disagrees, but his claimed injustice of trespass does not stem directly from the Council’s planning decision. That planning decision may have reduced the amount of available parking space for other properties in the vicinity. But the decisions of some motorists, to then park on Mr X’s land or inhibit his access to storage buildings at various times, are their decisions. They are not within the Council’s control. It is for Mr X to control access and use of his own private land.
10. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. He cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. The Ombudsman also cannot make findings of legal liability, such as finding a council responsible for trespass. Only a court could do so. Therefore, it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court, as that is the body which can make the finding he seeks.
11. Mr X wants the Council to fund his injunction proceedings. For the Ombudsman to require the Council to pay for Mr X’s legal action, he would have to make a finding that Council fault makes it responsible for the trespass of third parties parking on Mr X’s land. For the reasons given above, that is not a decision the Ombudsman can make.
12. I note Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s complaints process. The Ombudsman does not investigate councils’ internal complaints processes if he does not also intend to investigate the core complaint issue raised. In any event, it is not fault for a council to provide complaint responses from officers within the same department. It is for individual councils to decide how they respond to complaints and which members of staff have those duties. The Ombudsman cannot interfere in councils’ internal staffing decisions.

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is insufficient evidence of a direct causal link between the Council planning decision and Mr X’s claimed injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation;
• the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks, and it is reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman