Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Maidstone Borough Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 25-001-788 Sector Planning Category Enforcement Decided 09 July 2025

View Maidstone Borough Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take formal action regarding the condition of his neighbour’s land. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

Mr X complains the Council refuses to serve his neighbour with a notice under section 215 (‘s215’) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’).

He says the condition of the site has blighted his home.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 do not start an investigation if we decide 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 Mr X and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mr X wants the Council to serve a notice on his neighbour using section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This gives councils powers to serve remedial notices on owners or occupiers of land. The authorities’ power is a discretionary one, not a duty. Whether officers serve a notice depends on their judgement as to the adverse impacts caused by the land’s condition.

We may only criticise a council’s decision where there has been fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a properly made officer decision with our or anyone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes the Council has used to reach its decision.

In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council confirms officers have investigated the site on three occasions. Each time they decided the condition of the land does not justify serving a section 215 Notice.

Mr X disagrees with the Council’s assessment of the site.

The Council has advised that it is the professional opinion of planning enforcement officers that the condition of the site does not warrant the Council serving a section 215 Notice. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to serve a section 215 Notice on Mr X’s neighbour.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Maidstone Borough Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-019-245 Other
25-022-704 Other
25-010-280 Other
24-022-332 05 Jan 2026 Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to process his planning application properly, causing delay, distress and financial loss. We … Upheld
25-010-250 17 Dec 2025 Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Council tax arrears. We are satisfied with the action the Council … Other
View all decisions for this organisation