Summary: Mr X complained the Council was using an incorrect backdated date on its planning portal for publication of documents. The Council has introduced an automated process which prevents the upload date from being manually overridden in response to Mr X’s complaint. We consider this resolved the underlying issue in Mr X’s complaint but recommend the Council apologises to Mr X for the delays in handling his complaint and resolving the underlying issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X, acting on behalf of the Bristol Tree Forum, complained the Council was using an incorrect backdated date on its planning portal for publishing documents. Mr X says the backdating the publication date obscures the delay between the Council receiving documents and making these available to the public.
2. Mr X says this can result in the planning committee failing to consider the full information and frustrates the ability of the public to comment on these documents. Mr X also says backdating documents made it difficult to track newly updated documents as these could appear lower down in the list rather than at the top.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
7. Mr X provided comments on my draft decision which I considered before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 6 July 2020, Mr X complained to the Council about its planning decision process. Mr X said the Council backdated documents when it uploaded these onto its planning portal. Mr X said the Council uploaded a document onto the planning portal in a recent decision after it made a decision but backdated the document to before the decision date. Mr X said the planning department told him its process was to use the date it received the document as the published date and not the date it uploaded the document onto the planning portal.
9. The Council accepted Mr X’s complaint on 14 August 2020 and promised a response by 7 September 2020.
10. Mr X chased the Council for a response on 29 September 2020 before contacting the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) in November 2020. The Ombudsman asked the Council to respond to Mr X’s complaint.
11. The Council provided its Stage 1 complaint response to Mr X on 29 January 2021. The Council said it would review Mr X’s concerns about backdating documents and provide a response in the next two weeks.
12. The Council wrote to Mr X on 12 February 2021 to advise it had now changed its process. The Council’s new process was to always show the “publication date” for documents as the date it uploaded these documents on the planning portal. The Council agreed with Mr X’s comments that this would make its planning process more transparent. The Council confirmed this change of process with its planning officers on this date.
13. Mr X did not dispute the document “publication date” with the Council further but did dispute a separate part of his complaint which took his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s process. Mr X sought a Stage 2 complaint response on 2 March 2021 which the Council provided on 26 March 2021.
14. In October 2021, the Council uploaded a document on to a planning application but backdated this document to September 2021. Mr X complained to the Council about it backdating this document. The Council responded to advise it received the document in September 2021 so used this date as the “publication date”.
15. In December 2021, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about the Council reneging on its commitment in the Stage 1 complaint response. This followed an instance in which the Council uploaded a report onto its planning portal the day before a planning committee meeting and backdated this to two weeks prior. The Ombudsman and Mr X contacted the Council about using the incorrect date for publication of documents.
16. The Council issued a reminder to staff in December 2021 about the requirement to use the uploaded date as the “publication date”.
17. In March 2022, the Council backdated the date of an uploaded document on a planning application which Mr X brought to the attention of the Ombudsman.
18. The Ombudsman liaised with the Council who, on 5 July 2022, changed its system to prevent any other date than the upload date being used as the “publication date”. The Council said that if a member of staff used a different date the system would override this to the upload date to show as the “publication date” on the planning portal.

Analysis

Publication date

19. In 2020, the Council’s policy was to use the date it received documents as the “publication date”. Between the Council receiving the documents and uploading them on to the planning portal it completed validation checks which could result in weeks of delay between the receipt date and the upload date. This meant the date the Council published the documents on its online portal could often be weeks after the Council’s “publication date”.
20. Following Mr X’s complaint to the Council about this matter, the Council agreed with Mr X’s concerns and changed its process to show the “publication date” as the date it uploaded the document. The Council has shown it confirmed this new process with its planning officers on the same date it confirmed this change in process with Mr X. I do not find fault with the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns.
21. From February 2021 to July 2022, the Council continued to backdate the “publication date” on some documents despite its change in process. The Council’s approach to the “publication date” during this time was not consistent. The Council backdated the “publication date” on some documents but not others. The backdating of the “publication date” despite the change in process was fault.
22. The Council accepted this fault in December 2021 and again wrote to its Council Officers. While the Council tried the resolve the issue through this reminder, this did not resolve the underlying issue.
23. The Council identified the fault was caused by human error from its planning officers with some continuing to follow its old process. To resolve the human error element, the Council has changed its systems to override any manually input date back to the upload date to show as the “publication date”. I consider this resolved the underlying issues in Mr X’s complaint.

Complaint handling

24. The Council’s Complaints Policy says it will respond to complaints within 15 working days, and within 20 working days for stage two complaints.
25. Mr X made his first complaint to the Council on 6 July 2020. The Council took until 29 January 2021 to provide a Stage 1 complaint response to Mr X. This was a delay of 130 working days outside the Council’s complaint response timescales. This was fault.
26. While the Council delayed in providing the Stage 1 complaint response, it issued the Stage 2 complaint response within timescales.

Back to top

Agreed Action

27. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X for the inconvenience and frustration caused through the delay to his Stage 1 complaint and failure to follow its new policy in relation to the “publication date” from February 2021 until July 2022.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was fault leading to injustice. The Council’s actions have resolved the underlying issue in Mr X’s complaint. I have completed my investigation as I consider the Council’s actions a suitable remedy along with my recommendation of an apology.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman