Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a prior approval application for a larger home extension. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector, and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to verify the authenticity of an objection it received about his prior approval application for a larger extension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector can consider appeals about a decision to refuse a prior approval application.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council.
• information about Mr X’s prior approval applications, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The restriction detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 above applies to Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector if he wanted to challenge the Council’s decision to refuse his prior approval application.
8. And even if this restriction did not apply to the complaint, it is unlikely the Ombudsman could say the Council acted with fault in the way it processed the application. The Council has explained it received an objection via email, which provided a name and full postal address. There is no requirement or expectation on councils to check the authenticity or source of objections it receives about a prior approval application, particularly as no concerns were raised before the application was determined.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman