Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was poor communication by officers and the Council said it had refunded an application fee, when it had not. This complaint is upheld. Refunding the fee, and a payment towards Mr X’s time and trouble remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has not refunded a highways fee which it said it would do.
2. Mr X also complains the Council gave confusing information over a highways application, which meant he was unaware the application was not being determined until a year later.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X bought a piece of land with planning permission to build houses. The planning permission (from a separate district council) had a condition that meant he needed to get an agreement (a Section 278 application) with the Council.
9. A section 278 agreement is a section of the Highways Act 1980 that allows developers to enter into a legal agreement with the council to make permanent alterations or improvements to a public highway, as part of a planning approval.
10. Mr X put in a section 278 proposal to the Council in April 2020. The Council emailed Mr X on 25 June 2020 to say that 'on payment I can fully assess the works and provide any necessary comments'. Mr X paid the invoice on 31 July and I cannot see any further correspondence after this date that says the Council needed confirmation the planning application date had been extended before it assessed the application.
11. The Council said, in its response to Mr X’s official complaint that Mr X was aware that 'any work planned was put on hold pending confirmation from yourself, as the applicant or from your planning agent acting on your behalf, that the planning permission had been extended and therefore had not lapsed'. The Council said that it had refunded the application fee to Mr X but Mr X said he had not received it.
12. In response to my enquiries, the Council realised that it had not refunded the fee to Mr X and has now done so.
13. I have found evidence of fault by the Council. The Council said it had refunded the fee to Mr X but had not done so. This fault has now been remedied as Mr X has confirmed he has received the money. The Council has said it apologises for its error.
14. With regard to the section 278 agreement, the Council said that it explained in its email dated 25 June 2020 that Mr X would need to consult with the district Council about extending planning consents and conditions. The Council says that its usual process is that applications are put on hold until it receives the further information.
15. I consider that Council’s communication with Mr X on the matter was poor. The email of 25 June 2020 did not make it clear exactly what further information the Council needed or that no further work would be done. In fact, the closing sentence says that ‘on payment the officer could fully assess the works and provide comments’. As Mr X paid the fee soon after, I can see why he may not have been aware the application was on hold.
16. However, Mr X could have chased the matter up sooner as he left it almost a year before raising the matter again with the Council. And the Council had suggested in its email of June 2020 that it would be possible for him to apply for a temporary access. So, I do not consider the Council should pay the increased labour and material costs (as prices have increased in the year) for developing the site as Mr X suggests. I do think that a remedy for Mr X’s time and trouble is appropriate in this case, as he has had to pursue a complaint to get the application fee refunded.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. The Council will refund the application fee to Mr X. (This part of the remedy is complete.)
18. The Council will pay Mr X £250 due to its poor communication and towards his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint within one month of the date of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there was fault that caused injustice to Mr X. Refunding the fee and making a payment, remedies the injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman