Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of the planning enforcement case relating to a neighbour’s development. She says there were consistent delays in issuing an Enforcement Notice and that the Council did not handle the case accurately or in a timely manner.

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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about planning breaches taking place at a neighbouring property adjacent to her own.
7. The Council investigated and finding a planning breach had taken place it began preparing an Enforcement Notice but before this was issued the neighbour removed the unauthorised development so the Council took no further action. It also assessed a further breach in relation to the building of an extension but decided while it had not been built in accordance with the plans, it was not expedient for the Council to take further enforcement action.
8. While Ms X may be disappointed with the outcome of her complaint to the Council, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions councils make with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
9. The Council has acknowledged there was some delay in its dealing with this case due to volume of work and staffing issues. However, there is no evidence to suggest this had a significant impact on the case. The windows were removed to the Council’s satisfaction so that it did not then need to issue a formal Notice and it assessed the changes to the extension but decided while there had been a breach, it was not expedient for it to take enforcement action. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
10. Should Ms X’s neighbour carry out any further unauthorised development in the future, this can be reported to the Council in the normal way.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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