Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about a notice the Council posted on Mr B’s land stating he did not have planning permission. This is because the Council has already put matters right as far as reasonably possible and the Ombudsman would be unlikely to recommend further action.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council wrongly displayed a notice on his land stating he did not have planning permission for works he was doing and did not react properly when he reported this. Mrs B states this caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B provided and copies of his complaints correspondence with the Council, which the Council sent me. I also considered information on the Council’s website about his planning permission. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B was having building works done at a field he owns. In his absence, the Council displayed a planning enforcement notice at the site entrance stating there was no planning permission for any development and works without consent could result in prosecution. In fact, the Council had already given Mr B planning permission for the works. The Council accepts it was at fault for displaying the notice. It has corrected the inaccurate information on its system that led to this.
6. The Council put up the notice on a Friday and Mr B found it over the weekend. Mr B points out the notice would have been visible to neighbours and passers-by. The site entrance is in a rural area.
7. Mr B contacted the Council early the following week and the Council confirmed he had planning permission. Mr B asked for a written apology, which the Council initially refused. When Mr B made a formal complaint, the Council apologised for putting up the notice and accepted it should have apologised sooner.
8. Two weeks after displaying the notice, the Council put another notice on the site, this time at Mr B’s suggestion. The second notice confirmed the development had planning permission.
9. I agree the Council was at fault for putting up the first, inaccurate, notice and for not apologising sooner. However, I must consider whether there are sufficient grounds to pursue the complaint further.
10. As paragraph 2 explained, I must consider if the Council’s fault caused Mr B a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating. Mr B says he and his family experienced distress from the public, inaccurate suggestion they had done something wrong. I appreciate that would have caused some distress. I also note Mr B went to the effort of contacting the Council then making a complaint although we would expect complainants to devote some effort to pursuing a justified complaint.
11. I am mindful that the first notice was displayed in a relatively rural area, it was only displayed for a couple of days before Mr B could remove it and the Council later clarified publicly that the works had planning permission. Also, Mr B would have known immediately that he did, in fact, have planning permission. So he would not have been under the impression that action could be taken against him. The Council confirmed that when he asked it about the sign.
12. For these reasons, I consider an apology and correction of the information about Mr B’s site would be an appropriate remedy for the injustice the Council’s faults caused. As the Council has already taken those steps, I do not consider I need to recommend any action. I acknowledge the Council did not apologise at the first opportunity but I do not consider I need to do more about that. Overall, therefore, I consider the steps the Council has taken have adequately remedied the injustice it caused, as far as is possible. I do not consider a financial remedy necessary.
13. Mr B wants the Council to refund the fee he paid for his planning application. I do not consider that appropriate because Mr B paid that fee to have his planning application decided and the Council decided the application.
14. Mr B wants action taken against individual officers. The Ombudsman considers complaints against councils as a corporate body and does not investigate or make recommendations about individual officers.
15. Mr B wants the Council to apologise in the local press. I consider it would be disproportionate in the circumstances to recommend that.
16. Mr B also suggests the site notice defamed him. The courts can consider allegations of defamation so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to this point. Defamation is not necessarily a straightforward legal concept. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to consider this. So I shall not pursue this point.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient unremedied injustice to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman