Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s concerns about a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not considering the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, contacted the Council to raise concerns about a planning application for a development near her home. She said the application should not have been accepted as the Design and Access Statement did not include the required details and the developer submitted the wrong certificate of ownership. Mrs X says the Council did not answer her questions about the application and there was a long delay before she received a response to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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 information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X raised many concerns about a planning application for a development near her home. However, I cannot say she has suffered any significant injustice as a result of any alleged fault in the application process or because the Council did not answer her questions about the development. The planning application has been withdrawn and therefore permission has not been given for the development.
7. Mrs X has also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Mrs X but said its complaint process was not the appropriate way to deal with her questions about the development. Instead, it said her comments would have been considered by the case officer when they assessed the planning application.
8. While I understand Mrs X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with her complaint, the substantive issue she has complained about is the planning application. Where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issue complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not been caused significant injustice because of any alleged fault in the planning application process. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not considering the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman