Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a Certificate of Lawful Development because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to grant a Certificate of Lawful Development (LDC) for his neighbour’s structure. He says the structure is unlawful, because it is built on an Ordinary Watercourse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y previously complained to us about issues linked to his neighbour’s structure. We investigated this in 2023, and found the Council at fault for a delay in investigating reports made by Mr Y. During our investigation, the Council said Mr Y’s neighbour was in the process of applying for a LDC. There is no statutory duty for councils to consult on LDC applications. However, to its credit, the Council decided to notify Mr Y of the application.
7. The LDC was granted in 2024. We expect people to come to us within 12 months of being aware of a matter and Mr Y did not come to us about this until 2026. Therefore, this complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Given Mr Y’s significant interest in this case, I am satisfied he would have been aware when the LDC was granted. It is reasonable to expect him to have come to us within 12 months of this.
8. The more time passes between the events and a complaint, the more unlikely it is we can investigate them effectively, gather reliable evidence and reach a sound decision. In older cases we also may not be able to achieve a meaningful remedy because too many circumstances have changed. We are often unable to be able to show why events occurred or understand who was responsible.
9. I further note that even if the complaint was not late, we would not investigate it. This is because there is evidence the Council properly considered the LDC application before reaching its decision. About his concerns surrounding the structure being on an Ordinary Watercourse, the Council said it would carry out flood investigation in line with its role and responsibility as the Lead Local Flood Authority. We could add nothing further to the Council’s response.
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 somebody disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling, and I acknowledge delays in its responses to him. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman