Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to his correspondence and to advise him about a planning proposal. The Council has apologised to Mr X and this provides a suitable remedy for his complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to respond to his correspondence and suggested alternative forms of development at his property which would be completely unworkable. He says the Council’s actions have caused him time, trouble and financial loss.

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
• the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) and 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaints and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. In resolution of a previous complaint the Council paid Mr X £250 and agreed its conservation officer would meet with Mr X to discuss his proposals to extend his property. The meeting went ahead in late 2019.
5. The conservation officer emailed Mr X to confirm the details of their discussion and Mr X responded to this several days later. He was not happy with the officer’s suggestions and said that while he could complain to the Ombudsman, appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and/or take legal action against the Council he would rather discuss his options for developing his property further. The officer did not respond to Mr X’s email despite Mr X chasing, so Mr X complained again and asked for further compensation.
6. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 14 November 2019, approximately one and a half months after his email to the officer. It accepted the officer had failed to respond to his email and apologised and explained the reasons for this. But Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response and demanded compensation for the poor service he received. The Council reviewed its handling of the complaint and suggested Mr X apply for pre-application advice if he wished to discuss his proposal further, but it declined to pay him further compensation. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. While the Council accepts its conservation officer failed to respond to Mr X’s emails this does not automatically mean he is entitled to compensation. The conservation officer met with Mr X to discuss his proposal and while he was not happy with their suggestions we cannot say they must come up with a design the Council is guaranteed to be approved. If Mr X would like more formal advice he may use the Council’s pre-application service.
8. I accept the officer’s failure to respond to Mr X’s emails caused Mr X some frustration and inconvenience and the Council has apologised for this. This provides a suitable remedy for Mr X’s injustice and it is unlikely we would recommend it pays him compensation as he would like.
9. 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

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s apology provides a suitable remedy and it is unlikely we would recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman