Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s planning department. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s refusal of a third party’s planning application. He also complains about development carried out without planning permission in his local area.

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)

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, shared my draft decision with him and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X has made numerous allegations against the Council’s planning department but complains they have not been taken seriously. He complains in particular the Council failed to fairly consider a planning application by a third party (Mrs Y). He made ‘freedom of information’ (FoI) and ‘subject access’ requests but says the Council failed to properly deal with them. He also complains other third parties have carried out development in the area without planning permission or building regulations approval.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s decision on Mrs Y’s planning application is a matter between it and Mrs Y. Mrs Y disagreed with the Council’s decision and appealed against it to the Planning Inspectorate; we could not therefore investigate the Council’s handling of the application even if we received a complaint from Mrs Y herself.
9. If Mr X believes the Council has failed to properly deal with his FoI and subject access requests it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner is better placed to determine whether the Council has fulfilled its obligations and if it has not, it may take appropriate action. The Ombudsman is not a regulator and we cannot force the Council to release information to Mr X which it considers he is not entitled to.
10. The Council is not responsible for unauthorised development by third parties but as the local planning authority it must investigate reported breaches of planning control and decide what action to take. Mr X suggests it has failed to act but it is entitled not to take formal action where it considers it would not be expedient. I will not investigate this point further however as it does not cause Mr X significant personal injustice. Mr X claims no direct impact from the unauthorised development and he is not clear where the development is in relation to his property. While he is concerned about the Council’s actions and is unhappy about the actions of the planning department our primary role is to remedy injustice caused by fault and without evidence of injustice to Mr X we cannot recommend a remedy. Mr X believes the Council has wasted public funds but the law does not allow us to investigate issues such as these as they indirectly affect ‘all or most’ of the people in its area.
11. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman