Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council misleading him into making a planning application it will not support. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we will not investigate his complaint about delay and failure to provide information. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Officer on this point.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• misled him, causing him to submit a planning application which incurred a fee
• ignored his request for information made under the Freedom of Information Act
2. He wants the Council to refund the planning application fee and pay him compensation for the time spent on dealing with the matter and the stress this has caused him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council contacted Mr X after it received a report that he had breached planning control by placing a shipping container on a service road behind his property.
7. The Council says that, during a telephone conversation, an Officer told Mr X it appeared the site of the container was within his ownership. However, he also advised Mr X to refer to his Land Registry documents to confirm this. The same day, Mr X chose to put in a planning application and pay the required fee.
8. The following day, the Officer wrote to Mr X. He confirmed he had checked the Land Registry and the land where Mr X had placed the container is not included in the title deeds for his property. The Officer also advised the Council would not support a planning application to keep the shipping container on the service road because of:
• the location of the container
• its industrial appearance
• it being visible from the street scene; and
• the potential for pedestrian hazard.
9. Mr X says he put in a planning application and paid the application fee because of what he was told by the Officer during their telephone conversation.
10. The Council does not record its calls. Therefore, I cannot confirm exactly what was said. However, Mr X chose to make a planning application. It is his responsibility to ensure the information in the planning application form is correct.
11. Mr X also complains the Council ignored his request for information. We consider it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on this point.
12. The main functions of the ICO are to uphold information rights in the public interest by promoting openness by public bodies and protecting the privacy of individuals.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, and it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the ICO about the Council’s failure to provide information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman