Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to accept his whistleblowing disclosure and failed to enforce a high court injunction relating to planning permission. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s disclosure or its enforcement of the injunction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• Failed to accept his whistleblowing disclosure relating to a planning application and instead reclassified it as a service complaint.
• Failed to enforce a 2010 high court injunction.
• Mishandled data protection breaches.

Mr X told us the Council’s refusal to recognise his disclosure as whistleblowing left him carrying the burden of escalating serious governance and safety concerns without the protections afforded in law. Mr X also says the lack of action has prolonged risks to local safety and the environment, leaving him without trust in the Council’s ability to enforce the law. Mr X would like the Council to recognise his disclosure as whistleblowing and investigate in line with its whistleblowing policy. He would also like the Council to review the disclosure and ensure lessons are learned and accountability is applied.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr X complained to us about the Council’s mishandling of data protection breaches. This matter has been raised with the Information Commissioner’s Office. For this reason, I have not investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint.
6. I have investigated the Council’s actions in considering Mr X’s disclosure and its consideration of enforcing the 2010 high court injunction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Council’s whistleblowing policy

9. The Council has a published whistleblowing policy which sets out how it deals with disclosures from employees and members of the public.
10. The policy recognises that, under PIDA 1998, whistleblowing has a specific legal definition which applies only to disclosures made by workers, however, disclosures from members of the public will fall under the Council’s whistleblowing policy.
11. The policy is intended to cover major concerns reasonably believed to be in the public interest in one or more of the following categories:
• Criminal offences, for example, fraud, theft, physical or sexual abuse.
• Failure to comply with an obligation set out in law.
• Miscarriages of justice.
• Abuse or bullying of clients including children and vulnerable people.
• Evasion of statutory responsibilities.
• Unauthorised use of public funds or other assets.
• Abuse of power for financial or other gain.
• Endangering of someone’s health and safety.
• Damage to the environment.
• Other causes of malpractice, negligent, unprofessional or unethical behaviour.
• Covering up wrongdoing in the above categories.
12. The policy sets out that if a member of the public has a concern, they should contact the Council’s internal audit provider, South West Audit Partnership (SWAP) directly.
13. The Policy states that the Council’s whistleblowing procedure runs in addition to its complaints procedure and the Council will make a decision on which route to take each concern as and when disclosures are received.
14. Within ten working days the Council aims to consider the disclosure, determine the appropriate correct route and write to the person who provided the disclosure to explain how the Council intends to progress.

What happened

Whistleblowing

15. Between May and September 2025, Mr X submitted several complaints which related to the Council’s handling of ongoing land occupation in the local area.
16. In September 2025, Mr X submitted an email to the Council’s internal audit provider, SWAP. In his email, Mr X set out he was making a protected disclosure under both the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and the Council’s Whistleblowing policy.
17. Mr X’s disclosure related to the Council’s handling of a planning application and the integrity of the consultation completed.
18. The Council’s SWAP team considered Mr X’s disclosure alongside its monitoring officer and determined it was reasonable and proportionate to process the disclosure under its standard complaints procedure.
19. The Council wrote to Mr X within ten days to explain it had considered the disclosure and determined that, as the Council was already investigating similar matters as part of an ongoing complaint raised my Mr X, the Council would not progress the matter under its whistleblowing policy. The Council explained it would conclude its ongoing complaint investigation and would be happy to consider and review any new information once the complaint investigation was concluded.

High court injunction

20. The Council was granted a high court injunction in 2010 which related to a development with mobile homes. The development did not have planning permission in place for the occupancy. Following the injunction, the site was vacated and the land changed hands.
21. In October 2024 the mobile homes returned and further development took place.
22. The Council sought legal advice and was advised that, due to changes in circumstance, the original high court injunction was not enforceable.
23. The Council sought an interim injunction and encouraged the site developers to submit a planning application.
24. The Council subsequently secured the interim injunction and refused planning permission.

My findings

25. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s disclosure made in September 2025. The Council followed its whistleblowing policy to consider Mr X’s disclosure. As there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s disclosure, I cannot question its decision to pursue the complaint process.
26. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to seek an interim injunction rather than enforce the 2010 injunction. The Council took appropriate steps to consider its options and determined enforcement of the original injunction was not a viable option.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman