Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incorrect address entered on a planning application form. The applicant is responsible for ensuring the information provided is correct and the Council is not required to verify the applicant’s address. This information had no bearing on the planning decision and further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider the complainant has suffered significant injustice from the Council’s decision not to escalate her complaint through all stages of its complaint procedure.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Ms X, complains the Council:
• Accepted a planning application which included her late father’s address as the applicant’s correspondence address.
• Refuse to correct the address after they were made aware of the error
• Failed to provide her with a copy of the entry attached to the planning application
• Failed to take her complaint through all three stages of its complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; and
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:
• information provided by Ms X and the Council
• information available on the Council’s website; and
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council accepted a planning application to change the use of Ms X’s late father’s home to a residential children’s home. The applicant (a business) used the property address as their correspondence address. The Council granted permission for the change of use.
5. Ms X complained to the Council the applicant used the property address as their correspondence address instead of the business address.
6. The Council explained to Ms X that responsibility for ensuring correct information is entered on a planning application form lays with the applicant. And it is not required to verify the correspondence address. It also confirmed the applicant had signed the correct certificate confirming the property owner had been notified of the application.
7. The Council also confirmed the correspondence address had no bearing of the planning decision. It told Ms X it would not change the correspondence address or make a note on the planning record.
8. I understand Ms X may have found the statement that her late father’s address was the business correspondence address for the application concerning. However, this has no bearing on the consideration and outcome of the planning application. The Council is not required to check the correspondence address for planning applicant. And the Council is correct in telling her that the responsibility for ensuring correct information is included in planning application forms lay with the applicants themselves. The Council cannot amend the detail on a planning application after the permission is granted.
9. Ms X also complains the Council included the wording of the entry attached to the planning application in an email, instead of providing a copy on headed paper. As this information is freely available to view on the Council’s website, I do not consider this has caused her a significant personal injustice.
10. I have considered Ms X’s concerns about the Council’s decision not to escalate her complaint to stage three of its complaint procedure. We expect councils to follow their published procedures. However, it is not unusual for a Council to refuse to escalate a complaint if it considers it has already provided a full response and its position will not change. In this case the Council sent Ms X two responses explaining its position and reasoning. It also advised Ms X of her right to ask the Ombudsman to consider her complaint and provided our contact details. Therefore, I do not consider the Council to be at fault. Nor do I consider that Ms X suffered sufficient injustice from the way the Council considered her complaint to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and she has not suffered significant personal injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman