Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of an application for a certificate of lawful development. He says the Council’s decision to approve the application was irrational and ignored its own officer’s findings.
2. Mr X says he went to considerable time and expense to obtain information to challenge the Council’s decision and says he has lost trust in the Council, causing him anxiety and distress.
3. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are 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 the decision.
7. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision but it was one the Council was entitled to reach. It has explained the reasons for the decision and responded to Mr X’s concerns. It acknowledged the evidence Mr X provided but has explained it does not change its decision. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or achieve any worthwhile outcome by investigating the matter further.
8. Mr X says the Council’s decision was irrational but I do not agree. It is for the Council to decide what weight to give to the evidence and it is not for us to interfere in matters of professional judgement. We also cannot say the Council must revoke the certificate and would not recommend a remedy for Mr X’s time and expenses to try to overturn the Council decision.
9. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman