Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning matters at a site next to where the complainant lived. This is because: it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner; there is insufficient evidence of fault; it is reasonable for the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner if he has concerns about date processing; and we cannot achieve some of the outcomes he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters related to works at a property next to where he lived.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its 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. But 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)
6. And 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council.
• information about the planning applications for the site being complained about, as available on the Council’s planning application website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The 12-month time restriction appears to apply to any parts of the complaint about the Council’s handling of the planning applications and associated planning enforcement issues for this site. This is because planning permission was originally granted for the site in late-2020 and a subsequent planning application was approved in early-2023. Mr X contacted us in mid-2023, but we advised him he needed to raise his complaint with the Council first. Mr X did not contact us again until mid-2025. On balance, I am not persuaded there are good reasons why Mr X was prevented from resubmitting his complaint to us or contacting us again, so we will not investigate his late complaint now.
9. And even if this time restriction did not apply, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at decisions to decide if they are wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of 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.
10. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the planning issues relating to this site, so we would not investigate the complaint for this reason too. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the Council’s planning enforcement team was entitled to invite the submission of a further planning application when the works at the site were found not to be in accordance with the original planning permission.
• Mr X was able to object to both the applications for this site, and his comments are summarised and addressed in the case officer’s reports.
• the officer reports also go on to assess the proposals against the relevant planning policies/guidance and material planning considerations. Party wall issues are not a material planning consideration.
• it is not the Council’s role to adjudicate in boundary disputes.
• councils are entitled to invite applicants to submit amended plans during the determination of a planning application. But I have seen no evidence that Council officers fraudulently created or altered plans for the applications.
• I have seen no evidence of staff intimidation.
11. And if Mr X has concerns about how the Council uses or processes data, then I consider it reasonable to expect him to pursue this with the ICO instead, as it is better placed to deal with such matters.
12. Finally, we cannot achieve some of the outcomes Mr X is seeking, as we cannot direct the Council to revoke the planning permissions for the site, or have the works removed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint because:
• it is reasonable to expect him to have resubmitted his complaint sooner.
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the planning issues related to the site.
• it is reasonable to expect him to raise any data protection or processing concerns with the ICO.
• we cannot achieve some of the outcomes he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman