Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a listed building consent application. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice, and it is reasonable to expect her to pursue any data protection concerns with the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council allowed the applicant for a listed building consent (LBC) application to fraudulently use a structural survey she had previously commissioned. Mrs X is concerned her personal data may not have been properly handled, and also about potential liabilities arising in the future from the use of her survey.
2. Mrs X also says the Council failed to consult its ecology team about the impact of the application on bats.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. With regard to the second and third bullet points above, we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means 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.

6. With regard to the fourth bullet point, we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) 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)
7. We may also decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the action an organisation has already taken. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
8. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue(s).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the LBC application, available on the Council’s planning website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy her structural survey was used by a third party to support an LBC application.
11. But when validating an application, the Council is merely checking that the necessary plans/documents/information from the national and local checklists have been submitted to enable the application to be assessed. The Ombudsman would not expect the Council to check whether the applicant has permission to use each supporting document, and no concerns were brought to the Council’s attention during its determination of the application. As such, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council with regard to it accepting the survey as part of the application.
12. And, with reference to paragraph 6 above, if Mrs X has concerns about how the Council has handled any personal data contained within the survey, I consider it reasonable to expect her to raise the matter with the ICO.
13. In relation to the alleged failure to consult the ecology team about the application, I do not see that this causes Mrs X a significant personal injustice. With reference to paragraph 5 above, we will therefore not investigate this part of the complaint either.
14. The Council has apologised for the failure to respond to Mrs X’s 25 January 2025 email, and for the delay in responding to the Stage 1 complaint. With reference to paragraph 7 above, these apologies are a satisfactory way to address this part of the complaint. And in any case, as we are not investigating the substantive issues being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling in isolation. So, we will not investigate Mrs X concerns about the failure to respond to her email or the delay in the complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint primarily because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused her a significant personal injustice, and it is reasonable to expect her to pursue any data protection concerns with the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman