Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a development near Mr Y’s home and the Council’s handling of planning applications on the site. This is because parts of the complaint are late and other matters are better dealt with by other bodies. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify our involvement in relation to the remaining matters complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about how the Council has dealt with planning applications for a site near his property. He says the Council has deleted or concealed documents from the planning portal, regarding a previously decided planning application. Mr Y says the Council has demonstrated a lack of transparency. Mr Y also says his property was damaged and raises concerns about land ownership.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The planning application this complaint refers to was decided in 2022. Matters relating to the consideration of flood risk and visibility splays when deciding the planning application have been considered and decided by us previously. We previously found fault with record keeping relating to this planning application but did not identify significant injustice arising from this error. We found no fault in the way the Council considered the highways visibility.
8. Mr Y complains about several separate issues which relate to the Council’s handling of this planning application, and its actions since. However, most of these are considered late and we will not investigate them. We will only consider matters Mr Y became aware of within 12 months of bringing his complaint to us, which is between December 2024 and December 2025.
9. I note that Mr X has made much reference to allegations of criminal damage and says some matters have been reported to the police. It is not for the Ombudsman to comment on these matters. All allegations of crime should be reported to, and investigated by, the relevant police authority. We will therefore not consider parts of Mr Y’s complaint that suggest the Council has committed criminal damage.
10. Similarly, we will not consider parts of Mr Y’s complaint that suggests the Council is liable for damages or that dispute land ownership. The Ombudsman has no powers to enforce an award of damages and only the Court can do this. I understand Mr Y has instructed a solicitor, and I consider it reasonable to expect Mr Y to use the courts for such matters. We will therefore not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. Mr Y says the Council deleted or concealed documents from the planning portal. He says this demonstrated a lack of transparency and meant he was unable to dispute what information the Council held for a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
12. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Where Mr Y is concerned about the completeness of the FOI request, he should raise such matters with the ICO. The ICO is better placed to consider this part of the complaint, therefore we will not investigate it.
13. Mr Y says he has copies of documents the Council deleted. He also accessed them when they were previously available on the planning portal. I do not consider Mr Y suffering significant injustice because of documents being unavailable on the planning portal. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
14. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
15. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late and other matters are better dealt with by other bodies. There is insufficient evidence of Mr Y suffering significant injustice to justify our involvement in relation to the remaining matters complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman