Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council covered up an error by a local councillor who failed to call an application in for determination by its planning committee. This is because the complaint is late and the Council has already remedied the issue by referring the application to its planning committee.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained his councillor failed to ‘call in’ a planning application, meaning the Council could determine the application under delegated authority rather than referring the matter to its planning committee. He now complains the Council sought to cover up this failure by referring it to the planning committee outside its usual processes and procedures.

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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice caused by fault. Our remedies are designed first and foremost to put the person affected back in the position they would have been, had any fault not occurred.
7. Mr X’s complaint to the Council concerned the councillor’s failure to call-in the application and the Council took prompt action to remedy this by referring the application to its planning committee anyway. While Mr X considers this is a “cover-up” I do not share his view. The Council’s actions provide a sufficient remedy for the complaint as they put Mr X back in the position he would have been, had the councillor called the application in initially as agreed. The fact it took this step did not cause Mr X injustice; on the contrary it benefitted Mr X as it ensured the planning committee determined the application as Mr X wanted. In these circumstances it is unlikely further investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.
8. The complaint is also late. Mr X asked the councillor to call in the application in July 2023 and found out they had not done this in August 2023. He complained to the Council about the issue at the time but did not refer his complaint to us until March 2025, some 19 months later. The complaint is therefore some seven months late and I have seen no good reasons for the delay in bringing the matter to us.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and the Council has taken suitable steps to remedy the issue. The Council’s remedy does not itself cause Mr X any significant injustice and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman