Isle of Wight Council (23 018 890)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 04 Apr 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging more for drafting a variation on a planning permission than was suggested in its pre-application advice. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council charged him £350 more for work that it originally suggested in its pre-planning application advice. He wants a refund of the advice fee and compensation for the difference between the amount suggested in the advice and the fee charged.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X sought pre-application advice from the Council. It advised the fee for redrafting a variation of a planning condition is usually £150.
  2. The Council confirms the actual cost of the work was more than £900. However, it charged Mr X £500. Mr X complains he was advised that a fee for drafting a variation is usually £150. However, he had to pay £500.
  3. Pre-application advice provided by councils is not binding. The Council advised the fee is “usually £150”. The advice provided by the Council is not a quote for a service or a contract. In recognition of the difference between the suggested amount and the actual cost, the Council says it will make it clearer in future advice that the cost of input from legal services will be borne by the applicant.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s action to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings