Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contact with Mr X regarding refusal of his planning application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a Council planning officer telephoning him about his continued contact with the planning authority. He says the officer was rude, aggressive and unprofessional and he felt harassed by the call.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X contacted the Council on several occasions following its refusal of his planning application. He exercised his right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate but this was unsuccessful. He says that a Council planning officer telephoned him and advised him that there was no benefit in his making further contact on the matter because it was closed and the Council had no further role. He says the call was unexpected and that he felt intimated by the officer’s approach.
6. He complained to the Council about the officer. The Council has no recording of the call but advised Mr X that witnesses confirmed the call simply explained the Council’s role and that he should not continue persistent contact with it about a matter which was closed following the appeal. Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response.
7. Most councils have policies for limiting contact from members of the public who make persistent or unreasonable demands on a service about matters which are closed. This is to limit the impact on resources required for other service uses. The officer said that she explained the reasons for requiring Mr X to discontinue his contact about a matter closed by the Planning Inspectorate.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. In this case there is insufficient evidence that Mr X has suffered any significant injustice and that any sanctions about persistent calls have not been applied.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contact with Mr X regarding refusal of his planning application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman