Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Planning and Building Control matters relating to the complainant’s development. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we are unlikely to achieve a substantively different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about inconsistencies and lack of communication between the Council’s Planning and Building Control departments, in relation to whether his building works amounted to a new-build dwelling or extensions/alterations.
2. As a result of the Council’s actions, Mr X says he became liable for paying the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) because he no longer benefitted from the self-build exemption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council.
• information about Mr X’s planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In reaching this view I am particularly mindful that:
• Planning and Building Control are entirely separate regulatory functions. We would not normally expect officers from one service area to identify issues/problems regarding compliance with the legislative requirements of the other service area.
• The Council appears to have acted in good faith on the information supplied by Mr X’s agent at the time, as well as what it had observed during inspections. I do not see that the Council is responsible for any errors by the agent.
• When carrying out their building control functions, councils will not be present for the majority of the project. As such, they are not expected to act as a clerk of works. Furthermore, the Council’s role is to maintain building standards for the public in general, rather than to protect the private interests of individuals.
6. The Council has also confirmed the CIL demand notice has been cancelled, subject to the self-build clawback period requirement being met. The Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a better outcome than this for Mr X, so we will not start an investigation for this reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we are unlikely to achieve a substantively different outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman