Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to follow its complaint process when considering the complainant’s concerns about the handling of the planning enforcement investigation into works on his land. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we would not investigate the substantive issues that were being complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains to the Ombudsman about the Council’s handling of his complaint, which had raised concerns about the enforcement investigation into possible breaches of planning control on his land. For example, Mr X says the Council changed the title of his complaint at Stage 2 of the complaint process.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, we do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
5. Lastly, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures/processes, if we are unable to deal with the substantive/underlying matter(s) being complained about.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their planning enforcement and complaint correspondence.
• Mr X’s comments on an earlier version of this decision statement.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X says he is complaining to the Ombudsman about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
8. But, with reference to paragraph 5 above, it is not a proportionate use of our limited resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone, if we would not investigate the substantive/underlying issues that Mr X was complaining about i.e. the Council’s handling of the planning enforcement investigation.
9. The Ombudsman would not have investigated that matter, because there is insufficient evidence that fault has caused Mr X a significant injustice. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• each planning enforcement case needs to be assessed on its own merits, irrespective of what may or may not have happened at a nearby site.
• the Council has explained that due to data protection restrictions, it could not divulge details to Mr X about its enforcement investigations at other sites.
• the Council reviewed the information provided by Mr X about his site, as well as relevant legislation and case law, and informed him what its reconsidered view on each planning breach was. This was done within approximately 6 weeks of the Council first contacting Mr X.
• the Council has not taken any formal planning enforcement action against Mr X yet.
• the emails and letters from the Council are professional in tone, providing reasons for the planning enforcement decisions, and further explanations when these were sought by Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the alleged faults in the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman