Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of action on the complainant’s reports of breaches of planning control and building regulations. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to act on his reports that this neighbour:
• is breaching planning control
• stole part of his driveway and attached structures to his fence
• extended their property eight years ago without planning permission
• is breaching property covenants with installation of a bathroom; and
• delayed in responding to his complaints.

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)
4. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information or data protection. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complains he has made multiple reports that his neighbour is breaching planning control.
9. From the information we have seen, the Council confirms it has visited the neighbour’s property and taken the relevant measurements. It says the changes the neighbour has made is permitted development and does not require planning permission.
10. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain development (both building works and changes of use) to be carried out without making a planning application to the council as local planning authority.
11. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and, but for that fault, officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions.
12. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
13. The Council says officers visited the neighbour’s house, inspected the loft extension, and took measurements. They decided the extension is permitted development, does not require planning permission and is not a planning breach. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding the loft extension to justify an investigation.
14. I understand Mr X is concerned his neighbour has built over the boundary line and not followed the requirements of the Party Wall Act. However, these are civil matters between him and his neighbour and not matters for the Council to resolve.
15. Mr X also raised concerns about his neighbour’s bathroom which he says is extended over an existing kitchen, is over the building line and breaches covenants on the property. He also says the bathroom was in place when Mr X moved into his home eight years ago.
16. Matters concerning covenants are civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour and not for the Council to resolve. The Council has also confirmed it has shared Mr X’s concerns with its Building Control team. Also, the law says a complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the person becoming aware of the matter. Mr X says the bathroom was in place when he moved into his home more than eight years ago. Therefore any complaint about this is made too late and I have seen no reason why Mr X could not have raised concerns about this much sooner.
17. Mr X complains the Council refuses to provide him with information he has requested including measurements of his neighbour’s extension and information it holds about Mr X himself.
18. If Mr X is unhappy about how the Council has dealt with his subject access request he can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) which is better placed to consider complaints of this nature. This is the body set to deal with access to information concerns and there is no reason why Mr X should not approach the ICO on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the neighbour’s extension is permitted development
• it is too late to complain about a lack of action against the neighbour’s bathroom as Mr X has been aware of this for at least eight years
• building over the building line and failure to follow the Party Wall Act are civil matters and not for the Council to resolve; and
• it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO if the Council has refused to provide information which he believes he is entitled to receive.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman