Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a person accompanying a planning officer on a site visit. It is unlikely we would find Council fault which has caused her an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council should not have allowed a person to accompany a planning officer on a site visit. She says this has distressed her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council’s replies to her which it provided.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X applied for planning permission to build on her land. Her agent told the Council that all site visits needed to be prearranged. Mrs X says the Council knew she felt vulnerable to harassment and why that was so.
6. In January 2024 a planning officer visited the site. It is accepted by both Mrs X and the Council that a man accompanied the planning officer having arrived separately to the site. The Council says the planning officer did not know this man, he refused to give his details. It says the officer told the man he was not allowed on the site. But the man remained.
7. Mrs X says she was not present at the property at the time. She says she has seen events on her own CCTV. She believes the Council officer should know who the man was and should not have allowed this to happen.
8. The Council says following the site visit the planning officer advised Mrs X’s agent it was unlikely the officer could recommend planning approval. Mrs X chose to withdraw her application. The Council says the unknown man’s comments played no part of its view.

Analysis

9. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
10. It is unlikely our investigation could establish what probably was said between the planning officer and the unknown man. The planning officer had no power to physically remove the unknown man. It is unlikely we could criticise the planning officer’s professional judgment call to continue the site visit.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find Council fault which caused the unknown man to be on her property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman