The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has refused to consider the planning breaches and misrepresentations of a neighbour whose development has impacted on her. We will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has refused to consider the many previous planning breaches and misrepresentations of a neighbour and that these warrant an investigation and reply. She says she the Council should withdraw the previous planning approvals it has given.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.
My assessment
Ms X has been in dispute with a neighbour about development which has taken place at the neighbour’s property.
Ms X complained to the Council about matters relating to the planning history of the neighbour’s property, having been told by the Council it would only look at the most recent application that had been submitted.
The Council responded to the queries raised by Ms X and explained that permitted development rights would allow a change in the layout and use of residential space. It said that inappropriate parking on private land was a civil matter between the parties and that occupiers parking legally in a different location was not a planning breach.
The restriction highlighted at paragraph 2 applies to Ms X’s concerns about the Council’s response to past planning breaches and misrepresentations. These are matters we would reasonably have expected Ms X to have complained about to the Ombudsman sooner and there are no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to consider them now. Moreover, an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to the outcome Ms X seeks of the withdrawal of planning permissions already issued by the Council.
In responding to my draft decision Ms X says the 12-month time restriction does not apply to her complaint. She says she complained to the Council numerous times since 2017 when she became aware of planning discrepancies and that she had instructed a solicitor in 2017 because of the impact of the Council’s lack of action against planning breaches and the problems caused by its planning decisions and delays. However, having become aware of the problems about which she complains in 2017, we would reasonably have expected her to have complained to us sooner. While I note she says she was not told by the Council until recently that she could do so, she had a solicitor acting for her and her lack of knowledge is not sufficient reason to exercise discretion to go back and investigate events from 5 years ago.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman