Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of a certificate of lawful development application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the refusal of his client’s application for a certificate of existing lawful development. He says the Council should have reached its decision based on what had been built on site, instead of what was shown on the drawing submitted with the application.
2. Mr X also complains about the Council’s subsequent complaint handling.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• information about the application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy his client’s application was refused.
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, and our role is not to ask whether the Council could have done things better. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
8. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• there is no statutory requirement to carry out a site visit.
• the onus of proof is on the applicant to provide accurate information to support their application.
• the Council was entitled to rely on what was shown on the plan submitted with the application.
9. As we are not investigating the substantive, underlying issue that was being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

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 application was determined.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman