Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to visit his property as part of its pre-application planning advice service. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he paid the Council £125 for pre-application planning advice but the Council did not carry out a site visit to his property as part of the process. He also complains the Council failed to process his payment and issue the advice between January and March 2020.

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 shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X applied to the Council for pre-application planning advice in early 2020. He asked the Council to waive its usual £125 fee for the service as officers had been to his property previously so he felt they had enough information to advise without needing to visit again. The Council declined to provide the service for free so Mr X sent payment. He says he did this in January 2020 but the Council did not locate the payment and progress the case until March.
5. As a result of the recent Covid-19 pandemic and government guidance on working from home, followed by the nationwide lockdown, the planning officer dealing with Mr X’s case could not carry out a site visit. Mr X therefore complains he has paid for a service he has not received.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s pre-application planning advice service covers the process from submission of a proposal to the provision of written advice about it. This ordinarily involves a site visit to inform the advice but as Mr X himself argued it was not needed in his case. The Council used its records from his previous planning applications to prepare its written advice and discussed the proposal and the officer’s view with Mr X and his agent by telephone. He has therefore not suffered an injustice from fact the officer did not carry out a further site visit.
7. While I appreciate the delay between January and March 2020 was frustrating for Mr X it did not cause him such significant injustice that we would recommend a remedy. The Council has pointed out to Mr X that the pre-application proposal is almost identical to his previously refused application and its advice is consistent with the reasons for the refusal. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision on his application it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. If he wishes to test this again he may resubmit his application and appeal against any decision by the Council to refuse it again.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and because the matter has not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman