Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not prosecuting a planning applicant for fraud. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that the complainant had suffered injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained the Council did not prosecute the person who applied for planning permission for an extension at a neighbouring property. She says information about ownership of the property was inaccurate and so an offence had been committed under Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs B, including the Council’s response to her concerns. I have also seem information on the Council’s website.
6. I considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs B believes the planning applicant committed an offence by not complying with Section 65 of the 1990 Act to provide a certificate of ownership. The Council considers the certificate provided by the applicant’s agent did not contain information which was known to be ‘false of misleading in a material particular’ or had been issued ‘recklessly’. Rather, any inaccuracy was of a technical nature and could not be seen to be fraud, as Mrs B believes.
8. With regard to planning issues, the Council had to consider the planning merits of the application and grant planning permission if there were no valid grounds for refusal.
9. The Council publicised the application and Mrs B sent her comments on it. A planning officer set out the planning issues in a report which addressed the issues Mrs B had raised. The Council decided there were no valid grounds to refuse the application and so granted planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that she had been caused injustice. If the Council had resolved any technical issues regarding the certificate of ownership, it would still have granted planning permission. Whether the Council prosecuted a third party would not directly impact on Mrs B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman