Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted with residents about amendments to its draft Local Plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant an injustice. Other issues either happened too long ago, have been considered in court or should be raised with other bodies.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council carried out consultation for changes it made to its draft Local Plan. Mr X says the Council sent an email which could have easily been missed. Mr X also complains that Council removed green belt status to land close to his home, lied in court during a case about a boundary dispute and has failed to respond to his Freedom of Information (FoI) requests.

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
• 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)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council consulted on proposed changes to its draft Local Plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The consultation was carried out in accordance with the process laid out in its Statement of Community Involvement, which details how the Council consults with residents. Furthermore, Mr X did see the email and was able to comment on the local plan, so he has not suffered an injustice by the Council contacting him in the way it did.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that land close to his home has had its green belt status removed by Council without him being informed. This is because the land has not been classified as green belt for at least seventeen years, and therefore this element of Mr X’s complaint is made late. Council records show Mr X commented on plans in 2005 and in 2018, which showed the land was not green belt. Therefore I am satisfied that he could have raised this matter with the Council and the Ombudsman sooner.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly respond to his FoI requests. This is because he has complained to the Information Commissioner about this matter, whose decision may be appealed at tribunal.
11. Finally, in his complaint Mr X referred to the Council’s actions during court proceedings which considered a boundary dispute. I cannot investigate this matter as we cannot consider complaints about what happened in court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing him an injustice. Other matters are either late, have been considered by the courts or are matters for the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman