Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly misleading the public about plans for a local regeneration project during a public consultation process. This is because the plans are yet to materialise and there is no evidence to suggest the complainant has suffered a significant and personal injustice when these have yet to be approved.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr K) complains the Council misled local residents by including inaccurate and misleading information and visuals in a public consultation and proposals for regeneration development in Dorking.
2. In summary, Mr K says the Council’s plans are unfeasible and amount to a waste of taxpayer resources. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to withdraw the plans, correct these and resubmit them to the public for reconsideration.

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 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)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Before accepting a complaint, we must be satisfied the alledged fault has caused the complainant a significant and personal injustice. This means the complainant must show a likelihood of fault by the Council causing them serious loss, harm or distress. The Dorking Masterplan has not been approved and is subject to approval at a Cabinet meeting scheduled on 16 April 2025. The plans are therefore subject to change. While I recognise the issues raised by Mr K, his claimed injustice at this stage is speculative. It cannot be said that he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress over plans which are yet to materialise. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to remedy a speculative injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraph three (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman