Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has responded to the complainant’s correspondence regarding a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council made uncorroborated accusations about the nature of her correspondence regarding a planning application, and has failed to respond to the concerns she was seeking to raise. She says the Council has failed to give a response that is professional, respectful, open, and honest.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start 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.

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

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made a 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)
5. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice. This means we do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the alleged fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X.
• our decision on Mrs X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
• the Council’s complaint policy.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X previously complained to the Ombudsman about how the Council dealt with a planning application in her area. We did not investigate that complaint because we concluded we were unlikely to find fault in the way the Council had considered the application. Also, as the Council had not yet issued the planning approval, the alleged fault had not caused Mrs X a significant injustice.
8. The Ombudsman does not reconsider complaints which we have already determined. So, we will not investigate any parts of this new complaint which are about the way the Council determined the application.
9. Since our decision on Mrs X’s previous complaint, she has continued to correspondence with the Council about the application. In particular, Mrs X highlighted an ongoing investigation by the Water Services Regulation Authority (the Authority) into the operation of the local water company’s wastewater treatment works. The Council acknowledged the Authority’s investigation, but concluded that as its findings were yet to be published, it would be inappropriate to delay decision making on the planning application or refer it back to Planning Committee for reconsideration.
10. I appreciate Mrs X might disagree with this decision, but the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome. Here, the Council has considered the information Mrs X provided and explained the reasons for its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify starting an investigation into this part of the complaint. Furthermore, as the planning permission has still not been issued for the development, Mrs X has not been caused a significant injustice by the alleged fault in the Council’s consideration of this particular issue.
11. Similarly, whilst Mrs X might feel aggrieved and upset, the Council was entitled to express its concerns about the volume and nature of her correspondence and complaints regarding the application. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that any personal injustice caused by the Council’s comments is so significant as to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation into this aspect of the complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that the Council has not put any formal contact restrictions in place yet, and its 8 June letter to Mrs X confirms any new issues will continue to be raised and responded to according to the Council’s usual practices or complaint procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman