Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of enforcement action on an area of green space which Mr X says is used as a car park. Mr X also says the Council failed to respond to his complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports of parking on the green space. And we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to take enforcement action against the use of a green space as a car park.
2. He also says the council failed to respond to his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X told the Council that cars are being parked on an area of green space near his home. He considers this is a change of use which requires planning permission.
7. The Council confirms that parking cars on grass verges or public open space does not equal a change of use from open space to car park. Therefore, there is no breach of planning control against which it can take enforcement action.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision that it has no grounds on which to take enforcement action, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
9. Mr X also complains the Council failed to respond to his complaint. The Council says it considered his initial contact as a report of a breach of planning control, rather than a complaint. It confirms it did not open an enforcement investigation because there is no breach of planning control. However, it accepts it should have informed Mr X of this at the time. It has apologised for the failure to inform him of the outcome of its consideration of his report at the time. We do not consider that further investigation of this part of the complaint is warranted as Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided there is no breach of planning permission. And we do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s delay in telling him of the outcome of his report of a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman