Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning decision made by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the decision and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is for a planning expert to review the case and determine whether the Council’s decision was correct.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning issue concerning his neighbour’s property and made a decision which is unlawful and perverse. He says that as a result his neighbour has carried out development which overlooks his property and breaches his human rights. He believes an independent planning expert should review the matter and decide whether the Council was right.

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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
7. I have considered the Council’s explanation of how it reached its decision, along with plans and details relating to the neighbour’s property, and I have seen no evidence of fault that would allow us to question the decision.
8. While I appreciate Mr X believes the Council’s decision is perverse I do not share this view. In order to decide the decision was perverse we would need to show it was one no reasonable council would have made and such a position is not supported by the evidence available.
9. Mr X is rather looking to challenge the merits of the Council’s decision, along with its legality, and these are matters for the courts rather than for us. We also cannot determine whether the Council’s decision, or the development itself, breaches Mr X's human rights.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman