Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue a planning certificate. Mr X has an appeal right when the Council decides on his application and it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is refusing to issue a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development (CLEUD). He says this is despite the Planning Inspectorate having already heard his case against the Council. Mr X says the Council’s actions before that decision left him homeless and cost him financially.
2. Mr X also complains about the Council’s communications and how it handled his complaints.
3. Mr X wants the Council to issue the paperwork he has requested, and financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
6. 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), as amended)
7. 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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X has already appealed to the Planning Inspectorate about the Council’s decisions relating to a planning application he submitted in 2024, and then a subsequent enforcement notice, relating to that same property. So, the restriction in paragraph five applies to the Council’s decisions here and we cannot investigate the Council’s decisions that lead to the appeal.
11. Mr X said the Council was acting unreasonably in its decision relating to a CLEUD, citing it had relevant knowledge from 2020 onwards about how the property was being used and it should not issue him with a CLEUD. He also said it should have taken enforcement action then.
12. Mr X has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate about the Council’s refusal to issue a CLEUD when he applies. And we cannot direct the Council to issue him with a certificate in any case. Therefore, Mr X can apply, and if he is unhappy with the Council’s decision, it would be reasonable to expect him to appeal the decision. I have seen nothing to suggest it would not be reasonable for Mr X to use this process. So, the restriction in paragraph six applies and we will not investigate.
13. We will not investigate the part of Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not enforce against him in 2020, because any fault on the Council’s part here has not caused him an injustice.
14. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we cannot, or decide not to, investigate the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he can appeal to the Planning Inspector, and it is reasonable to expect him to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman