Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter as there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the planning officer’s correspondence and the Council’s handling of his complaints because these issues did not cause him significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. He is unhappy with the way the Council considered the issue and the way the planning enforcement officer spoke to him. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X reported a possible breach of planning permission to the Council in 2024. He said the breach allowed views directly into his bedroom window and he invited the planning enforcement officer to visit his property to see the impact for himself.
5. The officer visited the neighbouring property but did not visit Mr X’s home. Mr X believes this is unfair and that it led to bias in their handling of the case. But there was no requirement for the officer to visit Mr X’s property and we could not therefore say it was fault not to do so. Had the officer felt that they needed to see the impact of the breach from Mr X’s property they could have done so, but they did not. Having seen the views from the neighbour’s property towards Mr X’s home they decided there was no significant overlooking and that the impact of the breach was so minor that it did not warrant formal enforcement action. This decision is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no basis for us to criticise it.
6. Mr X is also unhappy about the way the officer spoke to him; he says the officer’s emails were condescending, obnoxious and dismissive of his concerns. He also complained the officer did not respond to his emails for several days. But there is no evidence to show this wrongly impacted the Council’s decision on the planning enforcement issue or that it caused Mr X significant injustice.
7. The officer forwarded Mr X’s complaint to a senior officer but Mr X says they failed to respond, so he raised a new complaint about them both. The senior officer then responded to this complaint, which Mr X believes is biased and unethical.
8. Although Mr X says he felt stressed and let down by the Council’s approach to his complaint 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. Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his complaint did not lead to any serious loss, harm or distress or cause Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision on the planning enforcement issue and it would not be a good use of resources to investigate Mr X’s concerns about the officer’s emails or the Council’s handling of his complaints as these issues did not cause him significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman