Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application advice provided in 2020. This is because the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his more recent request for pre-application advice because its actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his requests for pre-application planning advice. He says the Council’s advice referred to a supplementary planning document (SPD) which is outdated and contains erroneous information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X sought pre-application advice from the Council in mid-2020. He received the Council’s written advice in November 2020 and applied for planning permission in 2021. The Council has now refused his application.
6. Any complaint about the Council’s pre-application advice and the service it provided as part of his application is late. Mr X received the advice in November 2020 but did not complain to us about it until 15 March 2022, some 15 months later. I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate this complaint and even if we did, it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.
7. Mr X questions the validity of the advice on the basis the SPD referred to dates back to 2008. He says links in the SPD are no longer available and information in the document is inaccurate. But the Council has confirmed the SPD remains valid guidance so its reference to it would not amount to fault.
8. In addition to this, it is not the pre-application advice which causes the injustice Mr X claims. Pre-application advice is informal and non-binding and the fee Mr X paid only appears wasted now as a result of the Council’s decision to refuse his application.
9. While Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his more recent request for pre-application advice we will not investigate this further as the matter has not caused him significant injustice. Mr X believes he was entitled to a discount on his application but the Council’s invoice was for the full amount of the service. He contacted the Council to query this but received no response, so he withdrew his application. I appreciate it was frustrating for Mr X not to receive responses to his emails but he did not pay the fee for the pre-application advice and has subsequently decided not to proceed with it. This is his choice and we do not consider any injustice he suffered to be significant enough to warrant further investigation. In the event Mr X wishes to resubmit his application he would be entitled to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the main part of the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council which caused Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s more recent concerns because the matter did not cause him significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman