Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council gave him wrong information before he bought his home. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his legal remedy at court if he has evidence of Council negligence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council negligently told him land near his future home was not within the local development plan. Mr X says he felt safe no development would be approved and proceeded to buy the property. However, the planning inspector has granted planning permission for a housing development on the land. The Council failed at the appeal to defend its decision to refuse the developer’s application. Mr X says his house is devalued and the Council should pay compensation to cover the costs of him moving.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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.

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

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the planning inspector. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments including the complaint correspondence. I have considered the planning inspector’s 2021 decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
7. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault. The reported comment on the local plan does not suggest the Council told Mr X there could not be development. The Council could not guarantee the land would not be developed because it must deal with a planning application when it gets one. The Council resisted development by refusing planning permission. It decided it could not oppose the developer’s appeal, to the planning inspector, following legal advice.
8. It was for Mr X to discuss the Council’s information or advice with his solicitor before buying his property. If Mr X has evidence of negligent advice or information, upon which he relied, he may consider his legal remedies against the Council. Such a claim is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 4 above). It would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court because it has the power to award compensation
9. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the planning approval because the planning inspectorate is not a body within our jurisdiction (see paragraph 3). The Council is not responsible for the inspector’s decision. The planning inspector considered the objections of residents and did not uphold them in deciding to grant outline planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council gave him wrong information before he bought his home. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his legal remedy at court if he has evidence of Council negligence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman