Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to notify Mrs Q about her neighbours’ planning application. This is because the injustice she suffered is not enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs Q, about the actions of Carlisle City Council. He said the Council failed to notify his mother about her neighbours’ planning application for an extension. Mrs Q was, therefore, denied the opportunity to comment on it. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of Mrs Q’s complaint about the matter. Mrs Q feels let down by the Council.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered the information Mr X provided, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I considered information available on the Council’s website, including the case officer’s report on the application. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mrs Q’s neighbours applied for planning permission to build an extension to their home. The Council did not notify Mrs Q about the application and so she did not comment on it.
6. The case officer’s report on the application considered the impact of the extension on Mrs Q’s property. It acknowledged Mrs Q’s property would be most affected by the extension but did not think the loss of light would be unreasonable. The Council approved the application. The first Mrs Q knew about it was when her neighbours started building.
7. Mr X complained to the Council on behalf of Mrs Q. It accepted it should have told Mrs Q about her neighbours’ planning application and apologised for failing to do so. It responded to Mr X’s concerns about the impact of the new extension on Mrs Q’s home, particularly loss of light. The Council explained why, even if she had commented on the application, it would almost certainly have approved it. The Council also explained what action it had taken to ensure neighbours would be notified of planning applications in future.
8. Mr X said Mrs Q felt very disappointed and let down by the Council, not only because it failed to notify her of her neighbours’ planning application, but also because it took ten months to respond to the complaint.

Assessment

9. We will not investigate this complaint.
10. The Council accepted it was at fault for failing to notify Mrs Q about her neighbours’ planning application. She was undoubtedly denied the opportunity to comment on it. She was also understandably disappointed by the Council’s failure to notify her. But the Council apologised for this. In addition, I share the Council’s view that the outcome of the planning application – approval – is unlikely to have been different had Mrs Q commented on it. I say this because the case officer took account of the impact of the extension on her property. He did not say there would be no impact on Mrs Q, but that the loss of light would not be unreasonable. So, for this reason, the injustice Mrs Q suffered because of the Council’s fault is not enough to justify our further involvement.
11. Mrs Q is also unhappy the Council took ten months to respond to her complaint. We have decided we will not investigate the substantive issue complained of. So it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs Q’s injustice is not enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman