Summary: Mr X complains past fault by the Council resulted in the submission of a planning application in 2019 for development which will negatively impact on his home. We will not investigate the complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says fault by the Council over 25 years ago, which it acknowledged in 2017, led to the submission of a planning application in 2019 which has caused him anxiety and a reduction in the value of his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about matters concerning the listing of a mineral site in his locale over 25 years ago. He said the Council’s failure to have properly applied legislation concerning this listing led to the submission of an associated planning application in 2019 which had caused him significant injustice. The planning application has yet to be determined.
8. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and explained why it considered the site to have been properly listed and said it had not been at fault.
9. Mr X says the time restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 does not apply to his complaint as he only recently received legal advice about the incorrect listing of the site when he was reviewing a number of legal issues and other matters relating to the 2019 application with his Counsel.
10. While this does not mean such advice could not have been obtained earlier, we will not investigate the complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Mr X says the primary injustice he will suffer is entirely related to the extent of modern operating conditions the Council might impose on any permission given for the 2019 application and that an investigation and a finding of fault by the Ombudsman in relation to past events would reduce his injustice through the “imposition of appropriate operating conditions” for any such permission. However, even if we could carry out a safe and robust investigation into what happened over 25 years ago, and even if we found fault, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks for his complaint. It is not our role to recommend planning conditions on applications which have yet to be determined.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman