Summary: Ms X complains about a 2019 Council decision on a planning application which will affect her property. We will not investigate the complaint because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council granted planning permission in 2019 for a roof top development whose construction will significantly affect her property which is below in the same block. She says it gave the developers 3 extra months to start the development and that it has not protected residents from the bullying behaviour of the developers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 2 applies to Ms X’s complaint. The decision was taken by the Council in 2019 and as Ms X could reasonably have been expected to have complained to us sooner, the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.
9. Even if the complaint had not been made late, we are not an appeal body and we cannot review the merits of decisions properly taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
10. The Council has acknowledged it made an error in allowing a time frame three months over the initial three years allowed by the original application within which the development must start. However, this does not mean that the construction will go on for longer than it otherwise would.
11. Ms X complains that building control is with a private company rather than the Council, but this is a de-regulated service and the developers have chosen to use an approved inspector rather than the Council as is their right.
12. There was delay by the Council in addressing Ms X’s complaint at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure and it has apologised for this. However, we will not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.
13. There is no doubt existing residents of the block will be affected by the construction works which the Council has sought to control through the use of conditions but issues such as the legal and monetary threats from the developers which Ms X has referred to are civil and not planning law matters.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman