Summary
Mr C made reports to the council of breaches of planning control. Some action was undertaken but Mr C was concerned that correspondence with him, and the action being taken, stopped abruptly. After a gap of a few months, Mr C contacted the council again. He was told that the officer who had been responsible for his case had been absent from work on a long-term basis and that a review of their caseload had not uncovered the case Mr C was involved in as one requiring further action. The council apologised for this and began further action on the matter. Mr C continued to correspond and submitted information requests. He was dissatisfied with the council's actions and raised his complaints with us.
Mr C complained to us that the council did not take reasonable action following his reports of breaches of planning control. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that the council's actions regarding the breaches of planning control Mr C reported were reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint about this.
Mr C also complained to us that the council did not respond reasonably to his correspondence or his complaints. We found that there had been delays and confusion around providing responses to Mr C. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, as the council had already taken steps to remedy these matters, we did not make any additional recommendations.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201700087 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018