Summary: The Council failed to provide the complainant with a timely and clear confirmation he had complied with a planning condition on his planning permission. This caused him unnecessary stress and anxiety and time and trouble in pursuing these matters for 10 months. The Council has agreed an increased financial remedy to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of the Council over confirmation that he had satisfied the three-year commencement condition on a planning application.
2. Specifically, Mr X says the Council failed to provide a straightforward acknowledgement that development had commenced in response to evidence Mr X had provided of the demolition of the existing house on the site.
3. Mr X says the resultant confusion, contradictory advice, correspondence and prolonged process to correct records and identify faults caused him undue stress and anxiety and additional professional costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken with Mr X and considered information he provided.
7. I have considered comments and information provided by the Council.
8. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies (May 2018).
9. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

10. Mr X received approval from the Council in 2015 for a development. It involved demolishing an existing house and building a new one.
11. Mr X demolished the old house in late 2016 and told the Council he had done so, in writing in January 2017.
12. In January 2018 Mr X asked the Council to confirm it accepted the demolition as compliance with the condition on the planning permission that development should start within three years of the approval (by June 2018).
13. The Council then took nine months to confirm this in writing, in September 2018. During this time it gave Mr X incorrect advice about the need to make a formal application for a Discharge of Condition, for which he paid a fee. Mr X says he had to use his planning advisor further to help him resolve this matter with the Council, which incurred additional professional fees.
14. The Council delayed in responding appropriately to Mr X’s complaints on these matters. It completed its complaints procedure in November 2018. It accepted it had not acted properly towards Mr X, refunded the further application fee, apologised and paid him £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused to him of the faults. The Council also removed the Discharge of Conditions application from its planning records.
15. Mr X was dissatisfied with the response and the remedy provided so brought his concerns to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman’s view on remedies

16. The Ombudsman has Guidance on good practice on remedies where the actions of a Council have caused the complainant injustice. The Guidance says: “if the body in jurisdiction (Council) had acted without fault it could have resolved the complaint without involving the Ombudsman. So those circumstances justify a payment for time and trouble.”
17. “The remedy payment for time and trouble is unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300.” It should be adjusted to reflect the degree of extra difficulty experienced by the complainant, and any factors which make the complainant vulnerable.”
18. “We do not recommend repayment of the actual costs (such as postage and phone calls) associated with making a complaint.”

Analysis

19. In January 2018 Mr X wrote to the Council asking for confirmation that the demolition of his old house qualified as development and so met the condition on his planning permission; to start work within three years of the approval in 2015. Mr X had sent in evidence of the demolition in January 2017.
20. The Council has accepted it did not respond to Mr X promptly in January 2018. It also accepts it did not check its records when it did respond to him. His January 2017 letter was on the record of his planning application, so could have evidenced the demolition and allowed the Council to respond quickly, to confirm he had satisfied the time condition for works to start on the development.
21. Mr X had also had correspondence with the Council’s council tax team about the demolition, so the Council had another source of evidence to call upon, but did not do so.
22. The Council therefore could have provided the written confirmation Mr X asked for, that he had satisfied the start of development condition, at the latest by the end of February 2018. That it did not was fault.
23. Instead, the Council failed to respond to Mr X’s correspondence until he chased it further, provided incorrect advice in March 2018 in stating an application for a Discharge of Conditions was needed, incurred Mr X the costs of the application fees, then failed to progress Mr X’s complaints in a timely way and provided confusing information to him about removing the further application from its records.
24. The Council finally accepted faults in its actions in August 2018, at Stage 1 of its complaints process. It apologised and offered to repay the cost of the further application fees, remove the unnecessary application from the planning records, confirm in writing Mr X had met the time condition and provide a remedy for his time and trouble of £100.
25. Mr X escalated his complaint to Stage 2 as he remained dissatisfied with the level of remedy offered by the Council. The Council had also not removed the further application from its website. The Council provided the written confirmation of the condition requirements in mid-September and paid back the fees.
26. The Council responded to Mr X at Stage 2 in mid-October 2018. It confirmed it had removed the further application and had given Mr X incorrect information about the removal previously. It explained the basis for its financial remedy, which Mr X did not accept. The Council paid the £100 to Mr X by cheque, which he retained and banked in April 2019.
27. Mr X spent unnecessary time and trouble pursuing these issues from February to November 2018, 10 months. He had provided the necessary evidence in 2017 which the Council needed to provide him with a letter confirming he had started his development within the required timescales set out in his planning permission.
28. The Council apologised for its failings and paid Mr X £100 for his time and trouble. I do not consider this properly reflects the length of time he pursued these matters, during which the Council could have resolved the issue quickly by looking at its records and writing Mr X a simple letter. I have therefore recommended a revised financial remedy for his time and trouble and for the unnecessary stress and anxiety this caused Mr X.
29. However, I have not recommended the Council reimburse Mr X for the additional professional fees he claims. Mr X had already engaged a planning professional for his development; it was not essential to involve that expertise in resolving these particular issues and the complaints. Mr X disagrees with my findings on this point.
30. In response to my enquiries the Council has explained it has taken steps to improve its service in response to Mr X’s complaint. It said it held a peer review and developed an action plan going forward. It also reviewed its complaints processes and set up an improved performance management system.

Agreed action

31. I recommend the Council:
1. apologises to Mr X for the faults in its actions over the confirmation of the planning condition and for the incorrect information provided about a further application and then its removal from the records;
2. apologises for the unnecessary time and trouble the Council’s actions have caused Mr X over 10 months in 2018; and
3. pays Mr X a further £200, in addition to the £100 already paid (a total remedy of £300), to recognise the unnecessary time and trouble and unnecessary stress and anxiety these faults caused him.
32. The Council should complete these actions within one month of my final decision.
33. I recommend the Council should provide evidence to the Ombudsman of its actions to improve complaints handling and its planning service, to include and explanation and the outcomes of the peer review and a copy of the resultant action plan; outcomes from the complaints review and evidence of the new performance management system and its effectiveness.
34. The Council should provide this information within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

35. The Council was at fault in failing to provide Mr X with a timely and clear confirmation he had complied with a planning condition on his planning permission. This caused Mr X unnecessary stress and anxiety and time and trouble in pursuing these matters for 10 months.
36. The Council has accepted my recommendations therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman