Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to inform him of planning enforcement issues at a property he has since bought. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is too speculative for us to remedy, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to inform him, through his local land charge searches, about planning issues with a property he was buying. He says that because of the issues he has had to submit a planning application leading to charges of more than £40,000 for the community infrastructure levy (CIL). He has also incurred professional fees and lost time and money in relation to his development of the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. I shared my decision with Mr X and the Council and have amended this statement in response to comments made by Mr X.

Back to top

My assessment

7. If Mr X considers the information provided by the Council in response to his searches was wrong it would be reasonable for him to make a claim against the Council through the courts.
8. Mr X suggests the Council’s response has wrongly led to CIL charges of £40,000 but it is unlikely we could attribute these costs to any fault by the Council. This is because Mr X has questioned the need for the planning application which gave rise to the CIL liability but chose not to challenge the point with the Planning Inspectorate. Had he decided to do so, the Planning Inspectorate may have determined the application without imposing any liability for the CIL. Mr X may also have applied to continue with the development under the original planning permission on the basis the time limit for enforcement action had passed.
9. We cannot anticipate what decision the Planning Inspectorate may have reached on either of these points and consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to challenge them at the time.
10. While Mr X may no longer be able to challenge the decisions giving rise to his liability for the CIL, subject to the Planning Inspectorate’s time limits he may still appeal against the surcharge.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a claim against the Council through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman