Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised his neighbour about a planning matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused him significant injustice. The issues Mr X raises are private civil matters between him and his neighbour and his remedy for these lies in making a claim against them at court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council advised his neighbour they could carry out works to their property without consulting him or obtaining planning permission. He claims possible breaches of a private right of way over his neighbour’s property and the Party Wall Act 1996.

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 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) allows certain development without the need for planning permission. This is known as ‘permitted development’. Permitted development rights are subject to limitations and exclusions, but when a proposal falls within the parameters of development allowed by the Order it will not require planning permission; the Council therefore has no basis to refuse it.
6. It is not fault for the Council to advise that permitted development does not require planning permission or consultation with neighbours; this is a fact.
7. Mr X suggests he should have been consulted on this and other works because he has a right of way over his neighbour’s property and because other works on shared areas or along the boundary of his property require notification under the Party Wall Act 1996. But these issues are private civil matters rather than planning considerations. The Council therefore has no part in them.
8. Even if the works had required planning permission the Council could not have considered Mr X’s private right of way or issues covered under the Party Wall Act 1996. If Mr X believes his neighbour has breached his rights or provisions of the Act he may wish to take action against his neighbour at court. We could not hold the Council responsible for the actions of Mr X’s neighbour or say its advice, whether fault or not, caused him significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and any injustice he has stems from the actions of his neighbour rather than those of the Council. If Mr X wishes to seek a remedy for these actions he may wish to make a claim against his neighbour at court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman