Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case concerning a neighbour’s fence. We will not investigate the complaint 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 Mr X, complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action in relation to a neighbour’s fence and about its handling of his complaint about the matter.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 or may decide not to continue with 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council that a planning condition relating to a permission given for a development at a property behind his home had been breached because the fence between the two properties was in disrepair.
8. The Council visited the site and noted the fence was still standing but in poor condition. It noted that while the fence was still in place there was no breach to enforce but also that even if the fence fell down, it would not consider it expedient to take enforcement action. It explained this was because the fence serves a limited privacy role because it abuts a landscaped area behind a garage rather than an area of adjacent garden where fencing would restrict overlooking between gardens.
9. It acknowledged Mr X had found its customer service and complaint process difficult to navigate and inconsistent but said his complaint had received the attention of a number of officers and hoped the visit by the officer responding to him and the explanation of the process had provided some clarity.
10. While Mr X may be dissatisfied with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions made by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council visited the site and explained why it would not be taking action. This is the Council’s decision to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
11. While Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the complaints process is noted, we will generally not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is 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