Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council told her to apply for pre-application planning advice because there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s advice and its delay in responding to her queries about her neighbour’s development as these issues did not cause her significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council told her to apply for pre-application advice regarding a proposal which did not require planning permission. She says the process resulted in delays in her claiming land which does not currently fall within her ownership and that her application to the Land Registry to register the land as her property is therefore likely to fail. Ms X also complains the Council’s advice referred to a window, despite this not being part of her proposal, and that it did not respond to her request for information about her neighbour’s development until she complained.

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 effect 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 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

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. It was not fault for the Council to advise Ms X to apply for pre-application advice about her proposal. The service exists specifically to deal with queries about specific proposals and was the appropriate way for the Council to consider whether Ms X’s proposed development required planning permission. The Council did not charge for the service and the advice provided Ms X with some protection against any possible future enforcement investigation. The injustice Ms X claims from this issue is also highly speculative and not something we could say is the direct result of the Council’s actions; we could not therefore provide a remedy for it.
5. Although Ms X says the Council referred to a window in its pre-application advice this did not cause her significant injustice or warrant further investigation. There is no suggestion the Council shared personal information relating to any third parties or that its advice amounted to a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations.
6. The Council has acknowledged it delayed in responding to Ms X’s queries about her neighbour’s development but explained it has decided not to take any further action. It has apologised for the delay and this provides a suitable remedy for the issue; we will not therefore investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Ms X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman