Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contents and issue of a warning letter for an alleged breach of planning control. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice warranting an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly establish the facts about an alleged breach of planning control concerning his property before sending him a warning letter. He also complains the contents of the warning letter were inaccurate and misleading and that the Council failed to respond to his concerns about this, allow a meeting to discuss it or issue a corrected letter. Mr X believes the Council breached his human rights.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
6. The Council suspected a breach of planning control at Mr X’s property and wrote to him setting out its concerns. Mr X takes issue with the wording of the letter and in particular that it “required” him to permanently remove the development concerned or submit a planning application to retain it, rather than inviting him to do so. But we could not say any impact from this statement or the letter as a whole was significantly more than if the Council had “invited” him to submit an application.
7. The letter warned Mr X that it he did not apply for planning permission or if any application was refused, it would consider taking formal enforcement action. But this was only a warning of possible further action if the breach remained. Mr X is aware that any enforcement notice would carry a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector and told the Council that he would refer the letter to them as part of an appeal if it did issue one.
8. I do not therefore consider the warning letter itself caused Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.
9. Mr X’s concerns about the accuracy of the allegations and the Council’s failure to respond to his comments on this point would be matters for the Planning Inspectorate in the event the Council issues an enforcement notice. And if Mr X believes the Council has breached his human rights he may wish to seek legal advice about making a claim at court. We cannot determine whether a council’s actions have breached the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
10. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But 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. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman