Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in considering a planning application. The Council has apologised for its error and the delay this caused. We are satisfied this is a suitable remedy to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for his friend Mr Y. Mr X says the Council refused to consider Mr Y’s planning application because it insisted he submitted a second Written Statement of Investigation (WSI).
2. He says this caused a delay and unnecessary expense.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s website shows the WSI was attached to a historic building record which was submitted in December.
7. Mr X says the Council insisted Mr Y provided a separate WSI. It received this in February.
8. In response to my enquiries the Council accepts there is no material difference between WSI documents submitted in December and February, and it was at fault for insisting that Mr X provided a second copy. It has apologised to Mr X for the delay and stress this caused.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has apologised for the error in requesting a second copy of the WSI and for the delay this caused. I consider this is a suitable remedy to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman