Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consult him about his neighbour’s planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant enough injustice by the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s failure to consult him about his neighbour’s planning application and the way it dealt with his 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr X has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X told us he raised concerns with the Council about a development taking place in his street without planning approval. He says the planning department told him he would be contacted with the opportunity to object. Mr X says the Council failed to do this and to tell him approval had been granted.
7. The Council has said it advised Mr X of receipt of the planning application but because his property does not adjoin the application site, it did not send him a neighbour notification letter. We must consider whether Mr X has suffered significant enough injustice to justify investigating his complaint. In this case, because Mr X does not live next to the application site, the injustice he has suffered is not significant enough to justify investigating his complaint.
8. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint. He told us the Council ignored his initial objections and broke promises to enable him to formally object. Mr X also told us the Council failed to respond to his last response. While I understand there has been delays in the Council’s responses and Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint, the substantive issue he has complained about is the planning application and there is nothing to suggest the handling of Mr X’s complaint would have made a difference to the outcome of the planning application. Where we have decided not to investigate the substantive issue complained about, we would not consider a standalone complaint about the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant enough injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman