Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take planning enforcement action against the complainant’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not taken planning enforcement action against his neighbour for failing to adhere to the approved plans for an extension. Instead, it has allowed the neighbour to combine elements of two separate permissions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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 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))
3. We can 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the two applications, on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about his neighbour’s development, as he thought only one of the permissions for the site could be implemented.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. The Council’s planning enforcement team visited the site, and noted the neighbour had erected an extension using his permitted development rights, as well as other parts of a separate planning permission. The Council concluded the neighbour could carry out the two separate approvals, so there were no grounds to take enforcement action.
8. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached this decision, so the Ombudsman will not start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman