Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint that a private company has been allowed to manage maintenance of a housing development. This is because the planning permission that allowed the company to be set up was granted by the Planning Inspectorate, which is not a body within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman will not investigate the Council’s involvement in an agreement with the developer because investigation is unlikely to find fault or produce a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, complained that the Council had arranged for a private company to carry out maintenance of roads and open spaces on the housing development where she lives, leading to high costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about bodies that are outside of our jurisdiction, such as the Planning Inspector.
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered information provided by Mrs X and by the Council. I also sent a draft version of this decision to Mrs X and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X lives on a housing development which is part social housing and part privately owned. She complained that the Council had arranged for a private company to maintain roads and green spaces on the development and that the company’s charges made it poor value for money. Mrs X also said she believed the Council had received a “kick-back” from the housing developer and was “washing its hands” of responsibility for the public spaces while collecting council tax. She wants the Council to adopt the roads and green spaces or engage the developer to manage the site itself.
7. Responding to her complaint, the Council said it had initially refused planning permission for the development. Permission was then granted at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, which did not attach any conditions relating to the upkeep of unadopted roads or open spaces. As the Inspectorate is not a body in our jurisdiction we cannot investigate the granting of the permission.
8. The appeal decision was accompanied by a legal agreement known as a S106 which allowed the developer to set up a management company to maintain the site. The Council said it therefore had little influence over the maintenance arrangements, but offered to raise concerns directly with the developer if Mrs X would provide contact details. The Council will not investigate the Council’s involvement in the S106 agreement as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We cannot require the Council to adopt the roads, though Mrs X has the right to apply for them to be adopted.

Back to top

Final decision

9. My view is that the Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the Planning Inspector is not a body in our jurisdiction. In respect of the Council’s involvement in an agreement with the developer, the Ombudsman will not investigate as we are unlikely to find fault or achieve a different outcome for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman