Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a pre-planning application advice request and the subsequent complaint. The Council has already taken satisfactory action to address the complaint, and we will not look at its complaint handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in providing a response to his pre-planning application advice request and his subsequent complaint. Mr X also says the case officer did not respond to his associated emails and telephone calls until he complained.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

4. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and the pre-planning application advice responses.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has already apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s original pre-planning application advice request. It also provided further advice on an amended proposal for free.
8. I consider this to be a satisfactory way to address the complaint, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that the Council was entitled to provide its professional judgement that Mr X’s proposals were unacceptable in planning terms, and there are occasions where amendments to a scheme will still not overcome these concerns. And if Mr X disagreed with the advice he had received, it was appropriate for the Council to explain that he could test this by submitting a formal planning application and, if this was refused, he could appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
9. Where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling. So, we will not pursue any delay in the complaint response in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint, and we will not look at the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman