Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his planning application. We will not investigate his complaint about councillor conduct as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his planning application. He also complains it has refused to investigate his complaint about councillor conduct.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his planning application. Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspector which is the correct route to challenge this decision.
8. We will also not investigate his complaint about councillor conduct. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor complained about. Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
9. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer appropriately considered the matter before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the complaint should not be formally investigated. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mr X’s concerns, it is unlikely an investigation would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the decision to refuse his planning application. He has appealed this decision to the Planning Inspectorate. We will not investigate his complaint about councillor conduct because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman