Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application refused by the Council in 2018. The complaint was made too late but we would be unlikely to find fault caused the complainant significant injustice had he made it earlier.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained he incurred unnecessary costs because the Council gave him inaccurate pre-application planning advice. He says the Council should reimburse these costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. The Council also provided background information and I have seen information on its website. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

7. Mr B sought pre-application planning advice from the Council because he was considering building two houses. In August 2017 the Council provided the advice which clearly stated it was informal advice and did not prejudice the council in the determination of any related formal submission.
8. Mr B submitted a planning application in December 2017. In January 2018 the Council apologised to Mr B for an error in the pre-application advice it had given him. The Council decided to refuse the application in April 2018. It wrote to Mr B setting out seven reasons for its decision.
9. One of the refusal reasons referred to the location of the proposed development. This contradicted what the Council said about the location in the pre-application advice.
10. Mr B complained to us in March 2021.

Analysis

11. Mr B says he could not complain to us earlier because he needed to wait until a later application had been to appeal and he had completed the Council’s complaints procedure. However, Mr B was clearly aware of the issue in his complaint in January 2018 and so should have complained to us by January 2019. He did not bring it to our attention until March 2021 and I see no reason the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 should not apply to this complaint.
12. Even if this was not the case, the pre-application advice was not binding on the Council. It could only make a formal decision once Mr B submitted a planning application. The issue of the location was only one reason for refusal and it is very likely the Council would have refused the application even if the location was not as issue. It is very doubtful we could conclude fault had caused Mr B significant injustice had he made the complaint in good time.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint because it was not made within 12 months of him being aware of the issue. It is also unlikely we would find fault had caused him significant injustice had he complained earlier.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman