Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s pre-application planning advice request. This is because the claimed injustice is not serious enough to warrant our involvement and the use of public money.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her pre-application planning advice request. She says there were long delays and customer service was poor. Mrs X says she had to chase the Council and believes it should refund the £60 fee she paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council has accepted it took longer than usual to send Mrs X its pre-application advice decision. I understand these delays may have been frustrating. However, I cannot say the injustice suffered is significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman as Mrs X did still receive a response to her advice request regarding the need for planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman