Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a reported breach of planning control. This is because there is not enough personal injustice to Mr X to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against his neighbour for a breach of planning control.
2. Mr X complains the Council’s communication with him has been poor and this has had a negative impact upon his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains that his neighbour breached planning control by building an outbuilding that is 40 centimetres higher than allowed (without a grant of planning permission). Mr X complains that there is less daylight in his garden due to this and that the Council’s poor communication with him has had an negative impact on his mental health.
8. Mr X also complains that the Council officer did not carry out a proper assesement of the outbuilding, or consider his reports to the Council properly.
9. The Council have responded to Mr X and issued an apology for delays in its communication with Mr X.
10. As paragraph 3 explained, we must consider whether the matters complained of have disadvantaged Mr X significantly enough to warrant investigation.
11. The Council has established the outbuilding is 40cm taller than permitted by law without the need for separate planning permission. That does not mean the Council would refuse permission if the owner applied. The outbuilding is due east of Mr X’s garden and may interrupt sunlight for part of the early morning. However, the main house further to the east has a pitched roof, and Mr X has his own shed between his garden and the neighbour’s outbuilding, both of which are likely to screen some early sun from his garden. Any effect of the neighbour’s outbuilding alone is, on balance, not significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the Council’s actions here.
12. Any effect of what happened on Mr X’s health is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Liability for personal injury is not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court for compensation for health effects.
13. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of his communications and complaints. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s handling of contacts and complaints about a matter, if we are unable to deal with the matter itself.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not evidence of significant injustice to Mr X to warrant it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman