Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for pre-application planning advice. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Dr B has complained about how the Council dealt with her request for pre-application planning advice. Dr B says there were long delays before the Council provided detailed written advice and it failed to keep her updated. Dr B says she has been caused stress and will incur additional costs because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Dr B requested pre-application planning advice in relation to a proposed development. A meeting was held to discuss the development and advice was given. However, there was a long delay before the Council provided Dr B with a detailed written response to her advice request.
5. The Council has accepted there was a delay and apologised. It has also offered to refund half of the £1000 pre-application advice fee Dr B paid. Dr B says the Council should refund the full fee to reflect the time, trouble, and loss she has suffered because of the delay. However, I consider the remedy already offered by the Council suitable in the circumstances. Although there were delays, the Council did still provide the pre-application advice service paid for. The Council’s pre-application charging schedule also makes it clear that delay is not a ground for a fee refund.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Dr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman