Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning and enforcement issues at a site near the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to the complainant, and the Council has apologised for the delayed complaint responses.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly consider a retrospective application for a dwelling opposite his home, and has mishandled associated breaches of planning control. Mr X also says the Council has delayed in responding to his enquiries/complaints about these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can 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. So, 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• the Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and an update on the status of the enforcement appeals being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with what has happened at the site near his home. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we have no power to overrule the Council’s planning and enforcement decisions in this case. Rather, when deciding whether to start an investigation, we consider if there is enough evidence of fault and, if there is, whether this has affected the outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the complaint further. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Although the case officer recommended the retrospective application be approved, the Planning Committee decided to refuse it, and the Council served an enforcement notice on the applicant soon after.
• Planning enforcement action is discretionary, and it is ultimately for the Council to reach a professional judgement on whether it is expedient to take any action in response to a breach of planning control. The Council has explained to Mr X that it does not consider it expedient to take any action in relation to the other enforcement issues he has raised about the site.
8. The Council has also apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s enquiries/complaints. I consider this to be a satisfactory response to the difficulties Mr X experienced when corresponding with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice, and the Council has provided a satisfactory response to the delays in responding to correspondence/complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman