Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund a planning application fee. We have not seen evidence of fault in how the Council considered his planning application. Also, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate a complaint about the Council’s complaints procedure alone.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has a two-tier service for assessing planning applications. He says, if the Council discovers an application is permitted development after validating it, then the Council should refund the fee paid for a full planning application.
2. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to follow its complaints procedure.
3. He wants the Council to refund the £238 fee he paid. He also wants it to refund fees paid for any applications which it later finds are for permitted development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)”

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X paid for a full planning application. The Council validated and processed it.
8. Mr X later found out his project was permitted development. He asked the Council to refund the full plans fee he had paid.

9. The Council told Mr X that, once it validates an application, it will not refund the fee. Mr X used an agent to put in his application. It is for agents to advise their clients whether their projects need full planning applications. The Council confirms that it receives applications they are worked on using officer time and resources. If he was uncertain whether his proposal needed a full planning application, Mr X could have applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness for a Proposed Use or Development.
10. Government guidance says that, with a few exceptions, once paid, most planning application fees cannot be refunded. The exceptions include:
• when a request for written compliance is not completed within twelve weeks; and
• matters on enforcement notices.
11. There is no duty to refund a planning application fee if the Council establishes the application is permitted development.
12. Mr X says the Council runs a two-tier service; however, I have seen no evidence to support this. The Council confirms if it notices an application is permitted development when it receives the application, then it will refund the fee as no work has been carried out. However, it is not obvious, and the application goes through the validation process, then it will not refund the fee as Officers have started work on the application.
13. The second part of this complaint is about a failure to follow the complaints procedure.
14. The Council’s complaints procedure says, “a senior council officer – who is not responsible for the service you're complaining about – will investigate the complaint at stage two of the complaints procedure”.
15. In this case the head of the Council’s planning service responded to Mr X at stage two of the complaint process. This does not follow the published process. However, the Council has confirmed further investigation will not change its view that it does not have to issue a refund.
16. I will not consider this separate point as it is not a good use of public funds to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council deals with planning applications. The onus is on the applicant and their agent to ensure they put in the correct application and fee. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate a complaint about a minor error in a complaint handling procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman