Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for his former property. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council did not inform him about a planning application by a third party to develop a property he was in the process of selling. He says that as a result the third party had an advantage in sales negotiations and he did not achieve the full value of the property.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants..

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s response and the planning application details. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X sold a property in 2018. After exchange of contracts but before completion of the sale the buyer applied for planning permission to develop the site. Mr X believes the Council wrongly assisted the buyer and complains it did not inform him about the application. He also suggests it was not consistent in its approach, having refused planning permission for a similar proposal several years earlier.
5. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mr X exchanged contracts with the buyer before they applied for planning permission so even if the Council had informed him of the application he could not have negotiated a higher price.
6. The Council had no involvement in the sale/purchase and it was for Mr X to agree a figure for the property which he was happy with. If he felt the property had potential for development he may have held out for a higher sum. Alternatively he may have applied for planning permission himself.
7. The buyer has gained financially by obtaining planning permission to develop the site but this was not to Mr X’s detriment and it is not the result of any fault by the Council. The planning permission does not affect Mr X so there is no benefit to looking at whether there was fault in the way it reached its decision.
8. Mr X wants the Council to compensate him for the difference between the sale price and the value of the land following the grant of planning permission but this is not an outcome we could achieve. The Council did not de-value the property and it had no control over the price Mr X agreed for its sale. It did not benefit from the increase in value following its decision and we could not recommend it uses public money to compensate Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s grant of planning permission and its handling of the buyer’s planning application did not cause Mr X injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman