Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over a neighbour’s development which he says breaches the approved plans. We will not exercise discretion investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period because there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. It concerns matters which Mr X complained about to us in 2013 and for which it was reasonable to seek a civil remedy in the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council failing to take action against his neighbour who built a workshop which encroaches onto his boundary and damaged his adjoining wall. He says the Council did not take action over development which was different to the approved plans.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says his neighbour built a workshop in 2012 which was bigger than the approved plans and which encroaches over his boundary with guttering and flashings. He says it has caused his adjoining wall to suffer subsidence due to excavations. He complained to the Council in 2013.
6. The Council says it carried out an enforcement investigation in 2012 following complaints from other residents. The neighbour was required to submit a planning application for the changed works which he did in 2012. The Council approved the plans, and the enforcement case was closed as the works were compliant.
7. Mr X submitted a complaint to us in 2013 which was closed in early 2014. Mr X complained again in 2021 about his neighbour trespassing on his property. The Council told him that there are no remaining planning issues, and the boundary issue is a civil matter. He has already taken previous court action against his neighbour.
8. Analysis
9. Mr X was aware of the planning approval in 2013 and he complained to us about this matter at the time. Mr X complains about a matter he became aware of more than 12 months ago and we would not normally investigate in these circumstances. We have discretion to disapply this rule where we decide there are good reasons. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion because Mr X raised the matter with us in 2013 and his ongoing disputes about his boundary are a civil matter which can only be resolved by the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not exercise discretion investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period because there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. It concerns matters which Mr X complained about to us in 2013 and for which it was reasonable to seek a civil remedy in the courts.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman