Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s property being added to the Council’s local heritage list. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to add the property to the list, and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council adding his property to the register of locally listed buildings. He says this was done without consultation, which he says is contrary to Historic England guidance.
2. Mr X says inclusion on the list places unwelcome and unnecessary restrictions on future modifications that he may wish to make to his property.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• the 14 November 2022 report to the Operational Services Committee, which provided an update on the review of the ‘Register of Buildings of Local Interest’.
• information about the Cambridgeshire Local Heritage List Project’s (LHLP) assessment criteria, assessment process, and the asset scoring matrix.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council added his property to the local list.
7. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault, in the way the Council reached its decision to add the property to the list, to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this position, I am mindful that:
• There is no statutory requirement to consult owners about adding a property to the local list. The Historic England guidance says owners should be advised of the intention to locally list an asset, and that it is important to put in place a process for handling requests not to designate.
• Mr X was notified of the Council’s intention to add his property to the list, and the LHLP vetting panel reviewed his comments and the proposal before the property was formal adopted/added.
• Officers and panel members were entitled to use their professional judgement when deciding whether the property should be included on the list, even if Mr X believes its inclusion is not justified.
9. In addition, we could not recommend removal of the property from the list, so we could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, and we are unlikely to achieve different outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman