Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application and application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We will not investigate this complaint about failure to comply with data protection and access to information regulations as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner about this. Finally, we will not consider a complaint about failings in the complaint process as we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice caused by this point alone. Also, we do not consider an investigation about the complaint procedure to be a good use of public resources when we are not investigating the substantive matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Failed to follow the correct procedure when dealing with his neighbour’s applications for planning permission and a Certificate of Lawfulness.
• Failed to follow the General Data Protection Regulations and requests for information.
• Failed to follow the complaint procedure.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have reviewed the information provided by Mr X, the Council and that which is available on the Council’s website. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the applications for retrospective planning permission to retain a fence and for a Certificate of Lawfulness.
6. I understand Mr X is concerned the Council has not complied with the General Data Protection Regulations and requests for information.
7. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to contact the Information Commissioner about these concerns. This body has specific expertise in considering complaints about data protection and access to information and is better placed than the Ombudsman to deal with such matters. Also, we cannot direct the Council to make changes to its complaint management system.
8. Mr X complains the Council registered his correspondence as a formal complaint without him requesting this. He also complains it failed to follow the complaint procedure.
9. We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of any failures in the complaint process alone. Nor do we consider it a good use of public funds to investigate a complaint about the complaint process when we are not considering the concerns raised about the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning and Certificate of Lawfulness applications.
• It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner with his concerns about data protection, access to information and lack of compliance with the General Data Protection Regulations.
• We consider any failing in the complaint procedure alone has not caused Mr X enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation, nor do we consider an investigation on this point would be a god use of public funds.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman