Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a sequence of planning applications, because there is not a good reason for the delay in bringing matters to the Ombudsman. Other aspects of the complaint are better dealt with by the Council or the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• failed to handle documents related to a planning application with care;
• wrongly refused the application;
• treated her differently to her neighbour and gave her poor advice about what type of application she should submit.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to now allow her to submit an application for the same type of planning permission as her neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended). The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about decisions to refuse planning permission and conditions placed on planning permission.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mrs X submitted a planning application several years ago. A Planning Officer passed Mrs X’s documents to a Councillor without her permission. The Councillor removed them from the Council offices without permission, then failed to return the documents to Mrs X when she asked for them. It was established that the Councillor had destroyed them. The Council self-reported the data breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) when it became aware of it in 2023.
10. We will not investigate this aspect of Mrs X’s complaint because it is best dealt with by the ICO as the independent authority set up to uphold information rights. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its service is relatively easy to use. Given this, and the fact the Council has already reported the matter itself, there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter as well.
11. We will not, at this time, investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the conduct of the Councillor, because the Monitoring Officer’s investigation is ongoing. It is open to Mrs X to submit a complaint to us about this matter when she receives a final response from the Council, or if she doesn’t receive a final response within 12 weeks of making that complaint.
12. We will not investigate the Council’s decision on Mrs X’s first planning application, because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal this to the Planning Inspectorate (PI). In addition, the law says people should bring complaints to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter. The decision was made several years ago and the complaint is late. There is not a good reason for us to investigate it.
13. Mrs X submitted a different type of planning application which was approved. The Council refused a later application to remove a restriction it had placed on this. Mrs X appealed this to the PI, however the PI dismissed the appeal. Mrs X complains the Council should have advised her originally to submit the same type of application as her neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late. Even if we accepted that Mrs X was not aware of the most favourable type of planning permission to apply for until several years later, her final appeal was dismissed more than 12 months before she came to us.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because some aspects of it are late, and other aspects are better dealt with by other organisations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman