Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action against a neighbour who has built over their land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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:

• 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.

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s neighbour obtained planning permission in April 2022 for an extension. The Ombudsman would not investigate a complaint about this planning permission as it is out of time and there are no grounds to for disapplying that law.
7. A further planning application was granted for alterations to the roof and guttering in 2024. This reflected enforcement concerns that the guttering in the wrong place. The plans were accepted as a minor amendment to the previous planning permission.
8. Ms X says that the guttering still overhangs their property.
9. A Planning Officer visited the site in 2025 and concluded that it was now a civil matter, and enforcement would not be expedient as the boundary which was allegedly breached could not be defined so accurately as to make enforcement action successful. The Planning Officer also advised that any damage caused by the neighbour was a private civil matter.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
11. I am satisfied that the Council’s decision was made after consideration of the plans and observations from a site visit. In the absence of fault by the Council in the way the matter was considered, the Ombudsman would not question the merits of the decision not to pursue enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman