Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving an application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council should not have approved an application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD), for the use of a building near his home. He says the building should either have been included in an enforcement notice relating to the use of the surrounding land, or the fact it was not included suggests the building was not being used for the purpose and period of time claimed in the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. In that regard, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the complaint responses.
• The officer’s report on the CLEUD application.
• The Ombudsman’s decision on related planning enforcement matters at the site.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our decision statement on Mr X’s related complaint explains why we will not investigate his concerns about the content of the enforcement notices issued for the wider site, or the lack of enforcement action more recently. I will not revisit those issues.
6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council approved the CLEUD application.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. Here, the Council considered the case presented by the applicant, as well as information/comments submitted by objectors and the Parish Council. I understand officers also sought advice from the Council’s legal team. The officer report goes on to explain why, on the balance of probabilities, the application should be approved. This is the process I would expect to see and, as such, I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application to justify starting an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the CLEUD application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman