Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to award compensation for inconvenience caused by building works it carried out at the property next door to her premises. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council failed to notify her about the planning application for works at the property next to her premises and about its decision not to pay compensation for the inconvenience caused by the building works and by the erection of a metal column which was in place for a few months and restricted access to her premises.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s responses to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained to the Council about its failure to notify her, an occupier of rented premises next door to a property the Council was developing, about the submission of a planning application for the property. She also complained about the long running nature of the works and the inconvenience caused by the works and particularly by the presence of a metal column that had been placed in a location which restricted access to her premises for a few months. She asked that the Council pay compensation for this inconvenience.
8. The Council acknowledged it had failed to send a planning application notification letter to her in 2019 and it apologised for this, although there was some thought that Ms X had been told about the proposed works during a conversation with an officer at the time. It considered her request for compensation but told her it was unable to make such a payment and instead referred her to the Party Wall Agreement to which the Council and the owner of her property were signatories.
9. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to the part of Ms X’s complaint about notification of the planning application in 2019. As she knew about this at time and we would reasonably have expected her to have made a complaint earlier, this matter falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
10. With regard to Ms X’s request for compensation, the Council has correctly referred Ms X to the Part Wall Agreement and to her landlord. This is because, under the agreement, the property owner, who is her landlord, is obliged to make representations on her behalf and any claim Ms X makes for compensation will need to be pursued via this agreement.
11. In responding to my draft decision Ms X says a casual conversation is not a replacement for formal notice of a planning application and that the application did not show how her building would be affected by the works. While I note her comments, the lack of formal planning notification did not change her situation to any significant degree.
12. It is generally the case that building works will have a negative impact on an adjacent property. Party Wall agreements are made to allow work to be undertaken and provide for access to neighbouring properties while protecting the interests of neighbours. Had Ms X been the owner of her property rather than the tenant, the Party Wall agreement would have been made with her. However, as she is not, it is through her landlord that she should pursue her claim. If the Council has not responded to communication from the landlord as Ms X says, then the landlord will need to look to the terms of the Party Wall agreement in deciding their next steps. Ms X will also have rights under the terms of her contract with the landlord and these civil law matters will not be resolved with an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman