Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Certificate of Lawfulness application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider the matters he raised when it was considering a Certificate of Lawfulness application of a neighbouring property. He says the Council’s failings have caused him significant time, trouble and distress in trying to understand its decision-making.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he does not challenge the Council’s decision to approve the Certificate of Lawfulness. However, he says it failed to properly consider the matters he raised, which he argues were legally relevant to whether the Council could grant a Certificate of Lawfulness.
7. The Council explained its reasons for approving the application in its complaint correspondence with Mr X.
8. Although Mr X disagrees with the outcome, this is not evidence of fault in the process. It is clear Mr X and the Council disagree about the significance of various points and their implication for the lawfulness of the proposed development. That does not enable us to decide the Council was at fault. Moreover, lawfulness is a matter for the courts, not the Ombudsman. We consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and, but for that fault, the Council may have made a different decision. In this case, there is no evidence of fault affecting the outcome. We cannot therefore criticise the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman