Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to allow extended operating hours at Biggin Hill Airport. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is no realistic prospect of carrying out a sound investigation into events which occurred approximately 8 years ago.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to uphold its duty of care to residents or act with due diligence when considering (as landlord) an application to extend the operating hours of Biggin Hill Airport. He says the extension to the operating hours enabled larger aircraft to use the airport, with an associated increase in noise, pollution, and carbon emissions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use 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. We 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. But we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. And it is our decision whether to start an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• information on the Council’s website about the Noise Action Plan review.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above appears to apply to Mr X’s complaint. This is because the negotiations and decision on the extended operating hours occurred in 2015-2016. Yet Mr X did not contact the Ombudsman until early-2024. I see no good reasons why he was prevented from complaining to us sooner if he had concerns about the Council’s decision, so we will not exercise discretion to investigate it now.
8. And even if this 12-month time restriction did not apply, the Ombudsman would exercise her general discretion not to investigate the complaint. This is because any investigation into the Council’s decision-making in 2015-2016 is likely to be impeded by the passage of time. For example, we are unlikely to be able to gather sufficient evidence to reach a sound judgement, and even if some evidence is available, we would need to be particularly careful to ensure it is reliable, and provides a full picture. And in many cases, we cannot apply current standards, guidance, or professional expectations to historical situations. Given these difficulties, there is no realistic prospect of reaching a sound or robust decision on whether the Council acted with fault in 2015-2016.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner, and there is no realistic prospect of carrying out a sound investigation into events which occurred approximately 8 years ago.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman