Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council has handled a planning breach and its decision to take enforcement action because Mr X has already used his right of appeal and the law does not allow us to investigate. We will not investigate the other issues complained about because Mr X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to them.

The complaint

1. Ms Y has complained on behalf of Mr X about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control and its decision to take enforcement action. Mr X complains that:

• the Council has treated his planning case very differently to a comparable local planning case and the Council’s handling of his planning case shows unequal treatment, procedural unfairness and failure to investigate properly,
• the Council’s complaint response did not provide proper independent review or clear answers, and it gave him inaccurate information about the right to complain to the Ombudsman,
• the Council published his personal data without redaction.

2. Mr X says he has spent hundreds of hours preparing evidence and this has caused continuous stress, anxiety and disruption to family life. He says he has been unable to sell his property due to continuing enforcement action. Mr X also says his trust in local government has been damaged and the Council’s actions have caused reputational harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

6. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr X, Ms Y and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X has already appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decision to take enforcement action, therefore the restriction in paragraph four applies. Mr X has raised many concerns about the Council’s enforcement investigation. He says the decision to take formal action was based on assumptions and inaccurate information. Mr X also says the Council provided misleading information to the Planning Inspector. But these matters are related to the enforcement decision which has been appealed. The Ombudsman cannot investigate when someone has appealed to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal will not address all the issues complained about.
10. Mr X says the Council’s enforcement has been inconsistent and it has not taken action in relation to planning breaches at a neighbouring property. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice because of how the Council dealt with a possible breach at another property. The Council has also informed Mr X that it has requested an enforcement investigation file be set up for the other development.
11. Mr X says the Council’s complaint handling did not provide proper independent review or clear answers. He has also complained the Council provided inaccurate information about his right to complain to the Ombudsman.
12. 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. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice because of any misinformation about his right to come to the Ombudsman as this did not prevent him referring his complaint.

Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his request for information. But Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is concerned about how the Council dealt with his information request as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

13. Mr X says the Council published his personal data without redaction. This matter has already been considered by the Ombudsman, we will not consider the same issues again as part of this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council has handled a planning breach and its decision to take enforcement action because Mr X has already used his right of appeal and the law does not allow us to investigate. We will not investigate the other issues complained about because Mr X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman