Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to review its development plan, or adopt a supplementary document, specifically in relation to houses in multiple occupation. The alleged fault does not cause a significant injustice to the complainant, and we cannot achieve the outcome they are seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X, who represents a local conservation group, complains the Council has failed to conduct a review of its development plan after five years, contrary to the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended), and particularly with regard to the absence of a ‘House in Multiple Occupation’ (HMO) planning policy.
2. Mr X says the Council has failed to adequately respond to questions about this review, and also to the suggestion that a supplementary planning document (SPD) could be adopted to assist with HMO town planning in the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. With regard to the first two bullet points above, our role is to consider complaints where the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X, which included his correspondence with the Council on the matter.
• information about the Council’s preparation of a new Local Plan, available on its website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X and his group have general concerns about the increase in HMOs in the local area, and that they feel a specific planning policy is needed to control this. But on balance, and with reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 above, I am not persuaded that any injustice caused to them is specific and significant enough to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation.
7. And in any case, as we cannot direct the Council to undertake a review of the existing planning policy or adopt an SPD, we cannot achieve the outcome the group is seeking. So, we would not start an investigation for this reason also.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged fault does not cause a significant enough injustice, and we cannot achieve the outcome being sought.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman