Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s threats of enforcement action concerning a breach of planning control. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has singled him out for planning enforcement action regarding a fence it says is too tall. He says he feels victimised and that the Council’s action have caused him panic attacks and mental health issues.

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. The Council received a complaint about Mr X’s fence in 2024. It wrote to Mr X about the issue and explained that any fence fronting onto the highway could be a maximum of 1m tall. Its correspondence explained Mr X could cut the fence down, apply for planning permission to retain it as-built, or do nothing and wait to see if the Council decided to take any further action.
6. But Mr X says the Council’s position and correspondence about the matter was inconsistent. He says it initially told him it may not take action as the breach was minor, before later threatening further action if he did not cut the fence down to the permitted height. He also complains the Council’s planning enforcement officer did not respond to his requests for advice about the issue and that the Council singled him out when others on his road have fences which are taller than 1m and have faced no formal action.
7. Any homeowner who breaches planning rules is subject to enforcement action and while the Council may not have taken action against Mr X’s neighbours this is not an injustice to Mr X. Planning enforcement generally relies, to some degree or another, on reports from members of the public. Planning departments cannot reasonably be expected to identify all breaches within their areas without such reports. Where reports are made, councils must investigate them. If they find a breach of planning control they have discretion about what action to take, if any.
8. Mr X was responsible for erecting a fence which exceeded the permitted height and because the Council received a complaint about it, it had to investigate. It found the fence was too tall so it set out the options available to Mr X to deal with the issue and I have seen nothing to show its correspondence with Mr X was incorrect or misleading.
9. Mr X could have applied for planning permission to retain the fence as built or he could have left it as it was and waited to see if the Council issued him an enforcement notice. But he decided to cut it down to the permitted height. This was his choice and it was not the result of any fault by the Council. While the officer may not have responded immediately to a query regarding the fence posts the Council has now clarified this with Mr X. I do not consider any delay in dealing with this caused Mr X significant injustice because he could simply have cut the fence posts down to the permitted height along with the panels, if he wanted to ensure he would face no further action.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman