London Borough of Hillingdon (05A12836)
Planning applications Maladministration causing injustice
28 September 2006
‘Mr Eden’ owns a two-storey end of terrace house in a suburban street of similar properties. He applied to the Council for a certificate of lawfulness of existing use and development to erect a three-storey side extension up to the boundary he shares with the complainant, ‘Mr Smith’ (real names not used for legal reasons). By law Mr Eden’s development would require planning permission. The development is contrary to the Council’s policies and the Ombudsman is satisfied that it would never have received permission. Due to human error however, the Council granted the certificate of lawfulness.
Realising its mistake the Council quickly sought the advice of its Legal Department which wrongly advised that a replacement notice refusing the certificate could be issued to Mr Eden. The Council did this but Mr Eden refused to accept it.
In the meantime, Mr Smith complained to the Council about Mr Eden’s building work. He was told by the Council that it had been in correspondence with Mr Eden about its refusal of his application but that the matter had been resolved and it would be taking enforcement action against Mr Eden. However, after some correspondence with Mr Eden, the Council conceded that the certificate was valid and Mr Eden was able to build the extension.
Mr Smith continued to write to the Council about the development and the progress of its enforcement action. But the Council only gave limited information in its replies and did not tell Mr Smith that a certificate had been granted or that it had now agreed that it was valid until almost a year after it had reached this decision.
The Council’s failings were maladministration causing injustice. The Ombudsman says the case is “a tale of very substantial and very serious error, incompetence and delay”. Mr Smith now has a three-storey extension being built up to his plot boundary, where no three-storey extension should be. He has also been put to significant time and trouble in pursuing matters and he will rightly have an ongoing sense of outrage about the Council’s actions.
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
- appoints an independent party to undertake a ‘before and after’ valuation of his home and pays Mr Smith compensation to reflect any diminution in its value;
- pays Mr Smith £3,500 to reflect the injustice to him and for his time and trouble in pursuing matters; and
- undertakes a review of its procedures and ensures that its legal advice is accurate and complete.
Date Updated: 16/01/09