Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to respond to the complainant’s emails about planning enforcement, and its handling of the subsequent complaint process. The Council has already provided a satisfactory response in relation to the emails, our continued involvement will not change or progress the status of the underlying planning enforcement issues, and it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue the alleged faults in the complaint process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
• the Council failed to respond to two emails he sent about a planning enforcement matter.
• the individual who decided how the Council should respond to emails received on the planning enforcement cases, was also the person responsible for investigating his Stage 2 complaint, which raises questions about impartiality and transparency.
• the Stage 2 complaint response was delayed by a week.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken in response to the complaint.

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

3. In relation to the second and third bullet points above, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
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 Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications, enforcement notices and associated appeals, as available on the Council’s and Planning Inspectorate’s websites.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has already apologised for not sending an individual response to Mr X’s emails. It explained a residents group had encouraged people to contact the Council about the planning enforcement matter, resulting in the enforcement officer receiving a large number of emails. It had therefore not been possible to respond to them individually. Instead, the Council had advised the residents group to inform residents to direct any queries either to the group, the Parish Council, or their Ward Member, who would then disseminate updates received from Peterborough City Council.
7. With reference to the final bullet point of paragraph 2 above, I am satisfied this apology and explanation was a reasonable way to address this part of the complaint. So, we will not start an investigation. I am also mindful that the since Mr X complained to the Council, it has served enforcement notices on the sites he is concerned about, and these have been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. As such, an investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve anything worthwhile in terms of progressing the enforcement cases.
8. And with reference paragraphs 4 above, as we are not investigating the substantive planning issues being complained about (planning enforcement at the site, or the Council’s response to associated emails), it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s complaint handling in isolation. And even if this were not the case, I am not persuaded any injustice caused by the alleged faults in the complaint process is significant enough to justify pursuing these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the Council has provided a satisfactory response to the substantive part of the complaint about the lack of response to his emails.
• our continued involvement will not change or progress the status of the underlying planning enforcement issues.
• it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the alleged faults in the Council’s complaint process in isolation and, in any case, these did not cause him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman