Summary: Mr X complained he was not provided with updates on a planning enforcement investigation into possible breaches of planning control at a quarry. There was fault by the Council because of a period in which it did not keep Mr X informed of its investigation. However, the Council has since kept Mr X informed on a consistent basis. Mr X did not suffer a significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman because the Council did not keep him informed of progress on its planning enforcement investigation of possible breaches of planning control at a local quarry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I examined and background information sent to the Ombudsman. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided on its contact with Mr X. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council. I considered the Council’s comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X previously complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement matters at a nearby quarry. That complaint was decided in September 2020. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council’s actions and recommended a remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. One of the recommendations was that the Council should keep Mr X informed on the progress of its investigation into the allegations of breaches of planning control.
6. The Council initially wrote to Mr X in line with the recommendation. But there was a period between October 2020 and February 2021 in which it did not consistently send updates to Mr X.
7. Since March 2021 planning enforcement officers met with Mr X and have consistently written to him to inform him of progress on the investigations, and where available, the decisions on the alleged breaches of planning control.

Fault and injustice

8. There was a period in which the Council did not keep Mr X informed as it was required to by the Ombudsman. That was fault.
9. And the injustice? The Council has since addressed its inconsistent approach and met the requirement to keep Mr X informed. I do not find Mr X suffered a significant injustice because of the identified failing to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. There was fault by the Council. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman