The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of enforcement matters relating to a turning area to the front of the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Parts of the complaint are late, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to serve a notice on the complainant, and we will not pursue concerns about the Council’s complaints process in isolation.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, is unhappy the Council issued her with a breach of condition notice (BCN) for erecting a fence in the turning/driveway area to the front of her home, when it did not pursue enforcement action against her neighbour for breaching the same condition.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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)) In that regard, we cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) And we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their enforcement and complaint correspondence.
I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above would apply to any parts of the complaint about the Council’s August 2017 decision not to pursue enforcement action against Mrs X’s neighbour, who had erected an outbuilding in the turning area to the front of their properties. I see no reasons why Mrs X was prevented from complaining to us sooner about that decision, so we will not exercise discretion to investigate the matter now.
And whilst I recognise Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s more recent decision to serve her with a BCN, we do not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, we can only consider whether there is evidence of procedural/administrative fault in the way the Council reached its decision to serve the notice on her. Having considered the enforcement and complaint correspondence, I see no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached it decision. So, with reference to paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint either.
Finally, where we have decided not to investigate the substantive issue(s) being complained about, the Ombudsman will not normally pursue any associated concerns about the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there are no grounds to exercise discretion to consider the events from 2017, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to serve her with a BCN, and we will not pursue concerns about the Council’s complaints process in isolation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman