Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s grant of planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s property as there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision. Mr X says the Council owns the property but we cannot investigate any complaint about its management of social housing and will not investigate whether the construction of the extension breaches Mr X’s right of access to his property. This is because the issue is a private civil matter and it would be reasonable for him to take it to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has built an extension too close to his property. He says this affects his ability to maintain his property and will affect its value.

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. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the Council owns the neighbouring property. It is therefore likely that it has extended it as landlord of the property acting in its capacity as a social housing provider. Any complaint about the Council’s extension of the property therefore appears to fall outside our jurisdiction as set out at Paragraph 5.
8. However, even if the complaint was within our jurisdiction we would not investigate it. This is because the Council, acting as the local planning authority, has assessed the proposal and decided it is acceptable in planning terms. Mr X raised concerns about his ability to maintain his property as part of the application process but this is not a material planning consideration. The Council could not therefore consider this or use it as a reason for refusing the application. I have reviewed the Council’s handling of the application but I have found no evidence of fault affecting its decision. The Council properly considered the relevant issues but decided there was no basis to refuse the application. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and we cannot criticise it.
9. Mr X says his deeds contain provisions for access to the neighbouring property for maintenance purposes, and he therefore considers the extension may breach his right of access. But this is a private civil matter and it is not for us to decide if the Council, or any other person, has breached the deeds. If Mr X wishes to pursue the point it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s management of social housing. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s grant of planning permission because there is not enough evidence of fault, and we will not investigate whether the Council’s construction work breaches his right of access to the neighbouring property as it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman