The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case involving an outbuilding built in her neighbour’s garden which overlooks her property. She wants the Council to obtain a retrospective planning application from her neighbour so she can request obscure glaze in the window facing her property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its response to her complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X’s neighbour erected an outbuilding in their garden which has a window facing towards her property. As the neighbour declined to replace the clear window glaze with an obscure glaze, Ms X complained to the Council.
The Council investigated and while it found there had been a planning breach which technically required a planning permission, it decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action as it did not consider significant harm had been caused by the situation.
This is a disappointing decision for Ms X, particularly with regard to the impact she says the presence of the window has on a family member. However, it is a decision the Council is entitled to take. Not every planning breach leads to enforcement action, and it is for councils to decide whether such action is expedient or not looking at the circumstances of each case. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision.
There was delay by the Council in dealing with the enforcement case and Ms X’s complaint. However, these are not matters we will investigate when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman