Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its own procedures when it agreed to the appropriation of an area of land to allow a planning development to take place. We will not investigate the complaint because the alleged fault has not caused Mr X injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to follow its own procedures when it decided to appropriate land, thereby removing a legal right of way, to enable a planning development in the Council’s area to take place. He says the decision taken is not justifiable given that those affected will lose their legal right to access for over two years and that it is not in the public interest given the potential costs involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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)

3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council about a Cabinet decision to allow for the appropriation of an area of land so that a major planning development can take place.
6. Mr X said in making the decision Members had failed to properly satisfy themselves that the public interest in proceeding with the redevelopment of the site in question was sufficient to justify the interference with the rights of those people affected by the appropriation.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and referred him to the consideration of the matter given at the Cabinet meeting. It highlighted comments made by councillors which specifically made mention of the need to balance between the public benefit arising from the development and those residents and businesses which would be affected by it. It did not accept it had failed to comply with its legal obligation to consider the public interest when the Cabinet made its decision.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response and noting the decision would not have a direct impact on him personally but on the residents of Colchester generally, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

9. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and in deciding whether to investigate a complaint we consider not only the alleged fault, but also the injustice claimed by the complainant.
10. In this case, Mr X has acknowledged that he will not personally be affected to any significant degree. While he says the residents of the borough will be, and that the potential costs involved will fall on the public, we cannot, by law, investigate complaints which affect all or most of the people in a council’s area.
11. Mr X has also complained about the fact that the officer who considered his complaint was involved in the meeting he was complaining about. However, we do not generally investigate matters relating to complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Mr X injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman