Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to pay her an Empty Properties Grant after it failed to determine a planning application which she submitted in 2012. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns matters which the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before submitting her complaint. As well as the complaint being outside the 12-month timescale, it was reasonable for her to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to determine her planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complained about the Council failing to pay her an empty property grant which she applied for in 2014 and which was approved at the time. She says it was refused because her property did not have the necessary planning permission. She applied for planning permission in 2012 but the Council failed to determine the application. In 2019 she applied again, and planning approval was given. She wants the Council to pay the grant which she says she should have had after 2014.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice
• Failure to determine an application

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Ms X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X applied to the Council in 2012 to convert a property from retail use to a residential care home and accommodation. She says that over the next two years she says that the Council was unhappy with the proposed layouts she suggested and that it would not pay the fees which she was hoping to charge to fund her development.
6. After abandoning the work already carried out, she applied for an Empty Properties Grant in 2014 to rent the property out as three flats. The Council says she completed the application confirming that she had the necessary planning permission and the grant was approved. After renting the flats to housing applicants from the Council’s waiting list she found out in 2018 that she was not eligible for the grant because her properties did not have planning permission.
7. Following a complaint and enquiries by her Member of Parliament in 2018 the Council said that her application for the care home in 2012 had not been determined and no application for the flats had been made. Ms X says this was an error by the Council and that she should qualify for the grant because the Council had accepted her properties as suitable for renting from her. She applied for the necessary planning permission in 2019 and was successful.
8. The Council says her original application was not for the flats and she should have been aware that no planning approval had been issued. When a planning application is not determined within the statutory timescale an applicant can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate who may determine the application. There is no record that Ms X either informed the Council she would appeal or that she appealed to the Inspectorate.
9. The Council approved the grant on the understanding that Ms X had the necessary planning approval. She signed the forms to this extent, and she should have been aware that she had not applied for permission for the flats’ conversion at the time. The onus is on property owners ensure they have obtained the necessary planning permission and that this is for the development which they are undertaking.
10. These events took place 6 to 8 years before Ms X complained to the Ombudsman and we will not exercise our discretion to investigate them now. Ms X complained to her MP as long ago as 2018 and she could have complained to us when she was aware of the fault. However, the panning issues would have remained outside our jurisdiction even had she done so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns matters which the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before submitting her complaint. As well as the complaint being outside the 12-month timescale, it was reasonable for her to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to determine her planning application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman