Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council processing and granting permission for a change of planning use at a property he rents out. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process to warrant investigation. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the Council to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the main outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X owns a house he rents to a company. The tenant firm applied to the Council for planning permission to change the property's use from C3 residential to a different use class. The Council granted the permission in 2023. Mr X complains the Council:
1. incorrectly accepted his tenant had informed him of the intention to apply for the change of use permission;
2. failed in its due diligence to confirm that his tenant had made him aware of the application;
3. ignored him when he said he had not been told.
2. Mr X says the matter has had a severe impact on his mental health and wellbeing. He says the situation has caused him additional stress and severe anxiety, panic attacks and sleepless nights. Mr X wants the Council to revoke the planning permission and apologise to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; 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 from Mr X, relevant planning documents and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning application forms include a section where the applicant gives information about the ownership of the property proposed to be developed. Mr X’s tenant company confirmed it did not own the house. It then confirmed it had notified Mr X of the application 21 days before lodging it with the Council. Mr X disputes that he was notified by his tenant and considers the Council was wrong to accept their word for it. He considers the Council had a duty to confirm that he had been notified by his tenant and should have taken his word that he had not been.
6. Anyone can make a planning application related to a property they do not own. Councils acting as planning authorities have a duty to consider and determine valid planning applications received. They are not required as part of the planning process to pursue the owner of a property for further information before validating an application. It is not the Council’s role to double-check whether an owner has been notified of the application. The Council was satisfied here that Mr X knew about the application because he sent his objections to it during the planning process. The Council considered his objections, checked the legal position on the earlier notification issue, and determined they did not have grounds to refuse the permission. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in how it assessed the application’s validity or the owner notification issues here to warrant us investigating.
7. Even if there were Council fault here, we will not investigate. We note Mr X says he has been caused significant upset, stress and anxiety by the situation. But Mr X’s claimed injustices do not directly stem from any action or inaction by the Council during the planning process. It was his tenant’s decisions and actions in making the planning application which have led to the current circumstances. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the Council to justify an investigation.
8. The main outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to revoke the planning permission it granted to his tenant company. We cannot order councils to rescind planning permissions. That we cannot achieve the core outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate here.
9. We recognise Mr X may have concerns the planning permission will be implemented at his property by his tenant against his wishes. But planning permission does not grant the recipient the consent of the owner to change the use of the property in line with the permission. It is a matter between Mr X and the firm as to whether the use change can proceed. If Mr X does not want his tenant using his property in a way with which he disagrees, he may decide to take action in line with the relevant terms of the tenancy agreement between him and the firm. That is a private landlord and tenant matter with no involvement of the Council as planning authority.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault in its planning process to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the Council to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the main outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman