Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council is interpreting and applying laws and regulations regarding the control of advertisements and public art in his area. We cannot determine whether Mr X’s or the Council’s position on the rules is correct, which would be a court matter. Even if the Council is at fault, the matters do not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a resident of the Council’s area. He complains the Council is:
1. failing to apply regulations to letting agent advertisements;
2. not requiring the removal of public art he finds offensive;
3. refusing to require advertising consent or planning permission for murals;
4. not giving fines for third-party advertisement that the owners of the advertisements know about;
5. undermining the appearance and character of a conservation area;
6. misinterpreting permitted development regulations;
7. ignoring graffiti or art painted on a listed building;
8. declining to require removal of signs or pictures on highways for which there is no consent;
9. allowing walkway recreation facilities without planning consent, potentially enabling adverse possession and/or control;
10. being a third-party advertiser and not providing the required advertisement consent.
2. Mr X considers the Council is:
• undermining the rule of law by giving consents to individuals or companies to which it cannot grant consents; and
• undermining the character, appearance and amenity of where he lives, and the quality of life of him and many other residents.
3. Mr X wants the Ombudsman to give advice to all councils in the United Kingdom on how to enforce the relevant laws regarding the appearance, character and amenity of their areas.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code;
• online maps;
• Mr X’s written comments on my draft decision.
6. I also discussed the matter with Mr X.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X accuses the Council of various errors of interpretation of planning laws and guidance in its approach to the control of advertisements and publicly visible art. He considers the Council is misapplying or failing to apply planning laws and regulations to properly control the appearance of the public space. The Council disagrees with Mr X’s position and considers it is properly applying the relevant laws and regulations.
8. To reach a view on Mr X’s complaint, we would need to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations. The way a council interprets and applies them is a matter for the professional judgement of its officers. I do not consider we could reach a view on whether Mr X’s or the Council’s interpretations are correct, as only a court could make that decision.
9. In any event, even if we could determine there has been fault by the Council in the ways Mr X claims, we will not investigate. This is because the issues he complains of do not cause him such significant injustice to warrant us investigating.
10. Mr X says he is complaining on his own behalf, and on behalf of others who live in the area. But Mr X has brought his complaint in his own name only. He is not representing a local interest group or any of the area’s other residents. So I considered the complaint as one brought solely by Mr X.
11. Even if there has been fault by the Council, this has not caused a significant personal injustice to Mr X which would justify us investigating. None of the murals, other artworks or advertisements are near Mr X’s own property, so could not affect its amenity. I recognise Mr X says he is concerned about the impact on the appearance of the wider local area, including conservation areas. But Mr X is no more affected by the advertisements and images in those places than any other resident who visits them. Not all aspects of an area are likely to be acceptable or pleasing to everyone. It is not a significant enough injustice to Mr X that he sees some art or advertisements in or around the area that he does not like.
12. Mr X has been in contact with the Council, saying he wants to create an ‘art walk’ event similar to one last held in 2017. He has asked the Council about the permissions he would need. The Council has indicated the kinds of permissions required. Mr X has also received a Council response which he says shows officers are unwilling or unable to give him the permissions to run the art event. He considers this is a significant personal injustice to him, because he believes the previous art collective was not required to gain such permissions to run its events, or alternatively that it was able to get them when he cannot.
13. This is not a significant personal injustice to Mr X. The Council has not treated him any differently from the art collective in respect of the permissions, because he has not made any applications to it for such consents to run an event. The claim Mr X makes that he has been personally disadvantaged here is based on speculation about something that has not happened, which does not amount to an injustice to him.
14. I understand Mr X is waiting for responses from the County Council about the permissions issue. Any response from the County Council is not relevant because it would not alter the position that Mr X has no significant personal injustice from the permissions issue warranting our investigation, and because Mr X’s complaint is about the actions of the Borough Council.
15. In bringing his complaint, Mr X wanted the Ombudsman to issue advice to all councils in the United Kingdom on how to enforce the relevant laws on advertisements and public artworks. We only have jurisdiction over local authorities in England, not the entire United Kingdom. And as explained above, we cannot rule on the interpretation of legislation, which is the role of the courts. Where we cannot achieve the outcome someone seeks from their complaint, we will not investigate. That is the case here, so this is a further reason why an investigation is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• to reach a view on the complaint would require us to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation, which is a role for the courts; and
• even if there has been Council fault in its interpretation of the laws, this has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice which warrants us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman