Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing the complainant’s planning application. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used her right of appeal against the decision, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the proposal.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider the Equality Act, including the public sector equality duty, and her family’s human rights, when determining her planning application for an extension to assist an elderly and disabled family member.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We 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. The law also 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)
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector can consider appeals about a decision to refuse planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Ombudsman will not start an investigation into Miss X’s complaint.
9. This is because it is reasonable to expect her to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector if she disagreed with the Council’s decision on her planning application.
10. And even if this restriction did not apply, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. 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.
11. I find there is insufficient of evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the matter further. It weighed-up the competing material planning considerations, including the purpose of the extension and the Equality Act, and was entitled to reach a professional judgement on whether the proposal was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the proposal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman