Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with planning applications for demolishing garage blocks near his home. Complaints about matters which occurred before December 2024 are made too late and we have seen no reason why Mr X could not have raised these points sooner. The Council has granted retrospective planning permission for breaches of planning control occurring after this time, therefore further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner if he believes the Council is withholding information. Finally, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning applications in 2025 and 2026 to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to follow statutory planning and enforcement duties. He says garages were demolished without:
• Section 80 notices
• Building Control authorisation,
• consultation; and
• any contamination or asbestos assessment.
2. He also complains the Council failed to enforce these breaches or stop unlawful works and ignored evidence preservation notices, failed to respond to emails, did not follow its own complaints process and failed to provide information requested.

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 late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

6. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

7. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

10. The law says a complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of a person becoming aware of the matter.
11. The Council approved a planning application to resurface former garage blocks to create parking spaces plus associated external works. The planning officer’s report notes that three garage blocks had already been demolished and there were no objections from any statutory consultees including the Highways Authority, the police and the local town council. The application was approved in 2024. The complaint about this matter is therefore late and the restriction at paragraph four applies.
12. I understand Mr X says he could not complain to us sooner because the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. However, the law says the complaint must be made within 12 months of the person becoming aware of the problem. Not when the Council responded to him. We have seen no reason why Mr X could not have complained to use much sooner about these events.
13. The Council has also granted planning permissions in 2025 and 2026. These regularised any breaches of planning control on other sites where similar work to demolish garage blocks and provide new parking spaces have taken place.
14. The planning officer’s report for the latest set of works to be carried out including retrospective permission to demolish further blocks of garages includes a summary of the multiple objections made by Mr X. It sets out why the proposal overcomes the objections and permission has been granted. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning application to justify an investigation.
15. The Council has also confirmed that its building control team have advised Mr X that demolition notices were received for the garages and they do not consider the garages to be dangerous structures. They also gave Mr X a list of the demolition notices and the dates they were issued.
16. In view of the above I do not consider that further investigation of the part of Mr X’s complaint about events occurring in 2025 and 2026 will lead to a different outcome.
17. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaints. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not considering the substantive issue. We do not consider a failure in the complaint process alone to cause enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation.
18. Mr X complains the Council refused to provided copies of the demolition notices. Concerns about a council's compliance with Freedom of Information legislation are generally matters for the Information Commissioner's Office to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• His complaint about events occurring in 2024 is late.
• There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning applications to justify an investigation.
• Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome
• It is reasonable to expect him to complain to the Information Commissioner if he believes the Council is withholding information he is entitled to see; and
• It is not a good use of public funds to investigate a complaint solely about the complaint process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman