Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about councillor conduct related to a planning decision as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, causing Mr X a significant injustice, to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about the conduct of councillors in respect of their involvement in a planning decision to allow demolition of a building in a conservation area. Mr X is unhappy with the Council's decision on his complaint and says he has lost faith in local representatives and that this has impacted on his well-being.

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. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council that councillors had breached the code of conduct by failing to make a balanced judgement, when considering an application to demolish a building in a conservation area, when faced with misinformation and bias from the planning department and influence from another councillor, who Mr X considered to have a personal interest in the matter. Mr X also complained to the Council about the planning decision itself.
8. The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about the planning decision separately. Its decision on Mr X’s conduct complaint was that it did not consider there was evidence of the councillors having breached its code of conduct. The Council advised Mr X that it would not therefore take the complaint further.
9. While I recognise that Mr X is unhappy with the Council's decision, this does not provide grounds for us to investigate. The Council considered the complaint in line with its policy and came to a decision it was entitled to. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s complaint that would justify our further involvement.
10. Notwithstanding this, I do not consider any fault by the Council in how it dealt with Mr X’s conduct complaint could be said to have caused him a significant injustice. This is because the injustice Mr X claims, the decision to allow the demolition, arises from the planning decision, not from how the Council dealt with his conduct complaint. The Council has dealt with Mr X’s complaint about its administration of the planning decision as a separate and distinct matter.
11. Additionally, while I recognise Mr X’s wish for the building to be retained, I am not persuaded that the impact on him personally, of the decision to demolish it, is sufficient to warrant our further involvement or that there are significant public interest grounds to justify this.
12. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of Council fault causing a significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman