Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled planning issues for similar works at neighbouring sites. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with each site, and it would therefore be disproportionate to pursue the alleged complaint-handling errors in isolation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council’s planning department treated her neighbour, who is a councillor, more favourably than her in relation to works they have both done to their property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. In that regard, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the planning issues here to justify starting an investigation.
8. When Ms X enquired if the proposed works to her property required planning permission, the Council correctly told her that they did. Her subsequent planning application was approved. When the Council became aware of similar works to the neighbouring property, the Council wrote to Ms X’s neighbour advising that planning permission was required, and an application should be submitted.
9. As no application was forthcoming, the Council then had to decide whether it was expedient to pursue any formal enforcement action. It is important to highlight that Councils are under no duty to enforce every breach of planning control, and government guidance advises councils to act proportionately.
10. The Council explained to Ms X that if the neighbour had submitted a planning application for his works, it is likely they would have been approved, so it was not expedient to take any further action. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council took that decision, so the Ombudsman cannot question whether it was right of wrong, even if Ms X disagrees with the judgement the Council reached. In particular, I have seen no evidence to suggest the decision was influenced by the fact that the neighbour is councillor.
11. And with reference to paragraph 4 above, as we are not proposing to investigate Ms X’s substantive concerns about the planning enforcement process, it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate her other concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint, primarily because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the planning issues, and it would therefore be disproportionate to investigate her concerns about complaint‑handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman