Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning reserved matters for a development with which he is concerned. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to meet its statutory obligations in relation to reserved matters for a development with which he is concerned. He also says there were delays in it responding to his FOI request and in its own complaints procedure.

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 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 349B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about matters relating to planning reserved matters for a development with which he is concerned.
8. The Council responded to his complaint and the issues raised. It acknowledged there had been some delays in responding to him which had led him to raise an FOI request. However, it concluded it had not acted unreasonably in relation to the matters he had raised.
9. The Council appears to have addressed the concerns Mr X raised in his complaint and it is unclear how he has been caused injustice by the fault he claims. We do not investigate every complaint we receive, and we will not investigate when the fault claimed, and the level of personal injustice caused to the complainant, is limited.
10. There is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman in this case.
11. 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.
12. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X said he had acted in making his complaint as a private elector to see justice done. However, while Mr X’s concerns about the national housing supply and the behaviour of developers are noted, we do not investigate every complaint we receive and here there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or personal injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman