Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement matters in relation to Mr X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is wrong to say there is a breach of planning law by him residing in his property which the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) has deemed to be a “composite” building (50% residence and 50% business) and which he has been paying Council Tax and business rates for over a number of years. He says the Council is acting illegally and trying to stop him living in his own property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X owns and lives in a property which once operated as a hotel and which the VOA registered as a “composite” property whereby Mr X had both Council Tax liability for residence and business rates liability for business.
7. Having received a complaint about the condition of the exterior of the land at the property, a Council officer visited the site and found that Mr X was now living at the property as his permanent place of residence. As such, the Council explained to Mr X that as the site did not have planning permission for residential use (as opposed to its hotel use) a planning breach had occurred. It told him that as he was waiting on the outcome of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for a change of use from hotel to dwelling house, it would wait for the Inspector’s decision before deciding what further action to take.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about the behaviour of the case officer and argued that because the VOA has deemed his property to be a “composite” building this meant he could live in it and there was no planning breach.
9. The Council explained the VOA determination and a change of planning use are two separate matters and that the “composite” registration did not mean Mr X therefore had planning consent for residential use. It found no fault in the actions of the officer and did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
10. The Planning Inspectorate has now refused Mr X’s appeal and the Council has confirmed to him that it will be pursuing enforcement action against the planning breach.
11. While I understand Mr X’s disappointment to find the VOA registration does not mean that residential use of his property is accepted for planning purposes without the necessary planning permission, there is no evidence of fault by the Council on which to base an investigation.
12. The Council has correctly explained the position to Mr X and if he wishes to challenge any enforcement notices issued to him, he can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. As Mr X has this alternative remedy which we would reasonably expect him to use, matters concerning planning applications and enforcement notice decisions fall outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman