Milton Keynes Council (23 014 634)

Category : Planning > Enforcement

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 24 Feb 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to take planning enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

  1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement against their neighbour. Mr and Mr X said their neighbour was running a business from their property, had erected an oversized fence, and had extended the size of their plot by appropriating part of a footpath. They want the Council to take action against their neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council initially investigated Mr and Mrs X’s concerns during 2022 and 2023. It visited Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour and was satisfied they were not running a business and that the primary function of their property remained a home. It wrote to Mr and Mrs X explaining this. It also checked with Land Registry and found the neighbour had not wrongly increased the size of their plot. The Council accepted that a fence was too high, but said it was not in the public interest to take enforcement action. That was a discretionary decision the Council was entitled to make.
  2. Although Mr and Mrs X are unhappy with the Council’s decision we will not investigate. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how it considered their concerns to justify our involvement. If Mr and Mrs X believe there is a current breach of planning, they would need to report this to the Council for it to complete a new investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings