Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning applications and its refusal to deal with his complaint about the matter. This is because we cannot say the Council’s decisions on Mr X’s applications were wrong or determine any argument over whether Mr X must comply with its enforcement notice. The Council has commenced court proceedings against Mr X and if he believes he should not have to comply with the enforcement notice he should put his arguments forward as part of his defence.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his retrospective planning applications in 2022 and 2023. He says the Council did not properly consider the information he provided and refused to discuss the applications with him. Mr X complained to the Council but the Council declined to deal with his complaint as it has commenced court action against him. Mr X says the matters are separate and he is unhappy the Council has not responded to his concerns.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

8. The Council’s court action concerns Mr X’s non-compliance with an enforcement notice. The enforcement notice required him to remove unauthorised development from a property he owns. Mr X appealed against the enforcement notice to the Planning Inspector but the Inspector refused his appeal.
9. Mr X then sought to prove to the Council that the development did not require planning permission through two applications submitted in 2022 and 2023. The Council refused these applications but Mr X is unhappy about the way it dealt with them. He suggests that had the Council properly considered the applications it would have seen the development did not require planning permission; he therefore believes there is no basis for enforcement action and questions the Council’s decision to start court proceedings against him. He also believes the Council is wrong not to deal with his complaint as he considers the court action is entirely separate from his concerns about the way the Council dealt with his planning applications.

Mr X’s case

10. The Council’s enforcement notice and Mr X’s planning applications in 2022 and 2023 all concern the same development and present similar arguments about whether the development required planning permission.
11. While Mr X believes he provided sufficient new information as part of his planning applications to show the development does not require planning permission, and that the Council should not therefore require him to comply with the enforcement notice, this is a matter for the appeals process and/or the court. We will not separately investigate whether there was fault in the way the Council dealt with the applications as we cannot question its decisions.
12. Further, given that Mr X’s arguments may be relevant to the question of whether he must comply with the Council’s enforcement notice, the points he puts forward are more appropriate for him to argue in his defence at court.
13. As set out at Paragraph 4, we cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s commencement of court proceedings against Mr X, including whether it was correct to start court proceedings before it had determined Mr X’s application.
14. We also will not investigate the Council’s refusal to deal with Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the substantive issue concerns whether Mr X’s development requires planning permission and, therefore, whether he should comply with the requirements of the Council’s enforcement notice. These are matters for the appeals process and the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman