Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to properly advise him about his application for a certificate of lawful development. The matter has not caused Mr X significant injustice as he may reapply for the certificate for free within 12 months of the Council’s refusal of his initial application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly advise him about his application for a certificate of lawful development. He says he has wasted his £462 application fee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and took account of his response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X applied for a certificate of lawful development from the Council in March 2019. He claimed he had lived in his property, which the Council granted planning permission for on the basis it would be used only as holiday accommodation, for more than four years. He paid the Council £462 for his application.
5. The Council asked Mr X to confirm how long he had lived in his property for without complying with the condition; Mr X told the Council he had lived there for just over nine years. The Council refused Mr X’s application as the relevant period in cases such as his is 10 years and not four. As he could not show he had lived in the property for 10 years in breach of the condition he did not meet the criteria for a certificate of lawful development. Mr X complained to the Council that it had not advised him properly and that it took his application fee when it knew he had no prospect of success.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mr X’s claimed injustice lies in his application fee of £462 which, as a result of the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate, he says was wasted. But the Council confirms that under Regulation 11(4) of the Planning Fee Regulations 2012 (as amended), Mr X may resubmit his application within 12 months of its refusal without charge. Mr X remains within this 12 month period and he has now lived in the property for more than 10 years. So long as he can prove he has not complied with the condition attached to the property for the entirety of this period he can reapply for the certificate of lawful development at no further cost. It is therefore unlikely we could say the matter has caused Mr X significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman