Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a prior approval application for telecommunications equipment to be sited close to Mr X’s home. This is 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, complains the Council did not follow the correct procedures when it awarded prior approval for telecommunications equipment to be sited close to his home. He says the case officer was biased towards the applicant and did not properly weigh the balance of evidence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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:

• 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about various matters relating to its decision to grant prior approval for the siting of telecommunications equipment close to his home.
7. The Council addressed his concerns and while it acknowledged there was a drafting error in the officer report and that the report as a whole could have been better written, on review it agreed with the decision taken.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions with which complainants do not agree. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council has accepted that the officer report could have been clearer but there is no evidence to suggest fault affected the outcome of the application.
9. Moreover, while it is noted Mr X would like the decision to be revisited, this is not an outcome an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve. Such decisions can only be challenged by means of judicial review.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint 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