Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Ms X’s neighbour’s extension. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, disputes the Council’s decision that her neighbour’s extension falls under “permitted development” rights and says it should carry out a full investigation into it. She also complains about its handling of her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X’s representative and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about the extension built by her neighbour which was attached to her wall without permission.
7. The Council investigated her concerns and explained the work carried out fell within “permitted development” rights and that therefore her neighbour did not need to obtain permission from the Council via a planning application. It explained that an Approved Inspector from a private company, rather than the Council’s Building Control Team, had been appointed to ensure Building Regulations had been met and that therefore it had no role in this area.
8. With regard to issues of trespass on to Ms X’s property and damage to her property as a result of the works, it told her this was a civil law rather than a planning law issue. It also advised her that if there had been criminal damage, this would be a matter for the police.
9. While I understand Ms X has been distressed by the actions of her neighbour and the development that has been carried out, I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council which warrants an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Council assessed the development and decided it fell within permitted development rights and it correctly advised her that Party Wall and issues relating to damage to her property were civil matters with which it had no involvement. The Council adequately addressed the queries raised by Ms X’s representative and I see no grounds which warrant an investigation of the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman