Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council delay in providing her with pre-application planning advice, and it declining to deal with her complaint. The Council’s apology for its delay is a satisfactory outcome and there is insufficient unremedied injustice to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X sought pre-application planning advice in October 2023. She complains the Council:
1. delayed in providing the advice;
2. declined to deal with her complaint about its delay.
2. Miss X says the Council’s delay meant she could not sell her property nor discuss with officers the development of an empty plot next door to her property, which the Council owns and may develop.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The core of Miss X’s complaint is the Council’s delay in providing pre-application planning advice to her. It has since provided its advice to Miss X. The Council accepts it was delayed and has apologised to her. That is a suitable outcome for the injustice of the inconvenience the delay caused to Miss X, so we will not investigate.
7. Miss X suggests other injustices stem from the Council’s delayed advice. She appears to link it to her being unable to sell her property. The delay did not stop Miss X selling her property at any point if she wished to. We cannot say the Council’s delay directly led to Miss X being able to sell her property. We understand Miss X may have been seeking advice on the possibility of its buyer developing the property, to try to add pre-sale value. But pre-application advice is non-binding so would not guarantee the proposal would receive permission. The Council’s advice has confirmed it would not be in support of the development proposals. Miss X could have made a planning application for what she wanted if she considered she needed a formal Council view on her plans. No property sale would have included those specific proposals as a potential development opportunity for any buyer of Miss X’s property without full planning permission.
8. Miss X implies the Council’s delay in providing the advice prevented her from discussing the development of an empty plot next door which the Council owns and may develop. She might believe this could affect the future sale or value of her property. Asking for pre-application planning advice for her property would not give her information about the Council’s intentions for a neighbouring site. Miss X would need to wait for any planning application for the site to see the Council’s intentions, as any other nearby resident would. There is no duty on any nearby property owner, including the Council, to tell Miss X about any future planning application they may submit before they do so. There is insufficient other unremedied injustice to Miss X here stemming from the Council’s delay that warrants us investigating.
9. We note Miss X also complains about the Council declining to process her complaint. We do not investigate council complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• the Council’s apology for its delay is a satisfactory outcome to the complaint; and
• there is insufficient unremedied injustice to her stemming from the Council’s fault to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman