Summary: Mr X complained about the advice provided to him by the Council about maintenance work being carried out at his property. He says the Council misinformed him which directly led to the work being delayed. There was then further delay from the Council while it considered his application. During this time, he says that he could not live at the property. We found the Council at fault, and this caused avoidable distress. It will apologise and make payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the advice provided to him by the Council regarding maintenance work being carried out at his property. He says the Council told him that no permission would be required. However shortly before the work was due to commence, the Council told him he did need permission. Following this, Mr X is also unhappy with the amount of time it took the Council to grant permission.
2. During this time Mr X says that he was unable to live at his property and this issue caused him distress through the uncertainty over the situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
6. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. In addition, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.

Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

8. Where a council consider a building has significant historic or architectural interest it may record and grade it on the National Heritage List for England. The grades of listed buildings are as follows:

• Grade I – buildings of exceptional interest;
• Grade II – buildings of special interest; and
• Grade II* – particularly important buildings of more than special interest.

9. If a building is listed, it is subject to an additional layer of planning control and protection. In addition to any planning permission that may be required, any work to a listed building will also need listed building consent from the local planning authority.
10. It is an offence to carry out work on a listed building without first getting listed building consent from the planning authority.
11. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.

What happened

12. In March 2024, Mr X contacted the Council about planning permission to carry out maintenance works at his property. The Council responded to say that he did not need permission.
13. Later in the year just before the works were due to start, the Council contacted Mr X and stated that he would need permission due to the property being a listed building.
14. The following month Mr X made an application to the Council. The Council say there was a two-month delay in it responding to the application.
15. Following this Mr X says there was a further three-month delay until the Council sought more information from him. He disputed the need for this extra information. After a further month the information was provided, and planning permission was then granted.

Analysis

Initial information

16. The Council has admitted that it did not provide Mr X with the correct information about permission when he first approached it. I consider this to be fault by the Council. It should have asked Mr X for more information before providing its opinion on the matter. Also, the Council should have qualified any advice it provided. This is to say that the advice did not equate to the same as approval for the works to take place. This would have allowed Mr X to formally apply for approval before arranging for the works to begin.
17. The failure to do so has impacted Mr X by causing him avoidable distress in having to cancel the works at short notice. It also caused him further continuing distress in not knowing if the works would be approved when believing previously that he would not need permission.
18. I have considered the impact of the distress that this incorrect advice would have had on Mr X on my overall award below. I have also considered the Council’s previous award which Mr X has received of £500.
19. As part of its response to the complaint, the Council reminded its staff of the importance of not answering general enquiries until it has enough information to do so. I consider this action to improve its services to be sufficient in response to the complaint.

Delay in processing application

20. The Council has accepted that it delayed from processing Mr X’s application for two months after he submitted it. I consider this to be fault by the Council. It impacted Mr X by increasing the distress he felt about the matter shortly after finding out the Council had also provided him with incorrect advice.
21. It also impacted Mr X by causing him uncertainty in not knowing whether or when the works would begin and whether he could move back into his property.
22. After the initial delay by the Council there was a further delay of four months before the application was approved. I consider the Council could have done more to communicate effectively with Mr X during this time. Although there are requests for more information, Mr X also asked for the Council to contact him due to no response.
23. I note that Mr X disputes the validity of the information needed by the Council however once this was provided, the Council approved the application in a timely manner. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decision, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice.
24. In this case, the Council approved Mr X’s application on the receipt of the additional information. I have therefore only considered the impact of the further delay on Mr X in the award I have recommended below.

Compensation request

25. Mr X says that due to the actions of the Council he has incurred the following losses: accommodation, storage and removal, stress, on site cancellation fees, builders and architectural services.
26. Mr X’s complaint is mainly that the organisation has been negligent. Deciding about whether an organisation has been negligent usually involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way at evidence as only the court can to make its findings. In addition, only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation.
27. I cannot decide whether an organisation has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. So, I would usually expect someone in Mr X’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through his insurers. I consider it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use or to have used the court.
28. My award will therefore solely focus on the avoidable distress caused to Mr X by the faults of the Council in the handling of his application.

Back to top

Action

29. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the distress caused in the handling of his planning application.
2. Pay Mr X a further award of £250 (in addition to the previously awarded £500) in recognition of the distress caused in the Council’s handling of his application.
30. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payment to Mr X for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman