Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of two linked planning applications. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. We have no powers to quash the decisions or make the Council consider the applications again, and it is unlikely we could say the outcome should have been different.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly validated two planning applications where the applicant had completed the wrong ownership certificate, denying adjoining owners their right to comment on the applications.
2. Mr X believes the Council failed to properly consider the application and dismissed material issues. He is concerned about the impact of the development on his property and says the Council’s delay in dealing with his ‘freedom of information’ request meant he could not challenge the decisions at court.
3. Mr X wants the Council to quash the planning permission granted, reconsider the applications and consult with adjoining owners. He also wants the Council to review is validation procedures and acknowledge the loss of his right to challenge the decisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• 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
• 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong and we have no power to quash the Council’s decisions or force it to reconsider decisions which have already been made. We cannot therefore achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
12. Mr X acknowledges he had the right to challenge the Council’s decisions at court but says he was unable to exercise this due to the Council’s delay in responding to his ‘freedom of information’ request. We cannot speculate as to what the court’s decision may have been, had Mr X decided to challenge the decision at court, or say the development should have not gone ahead. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner about the Council’s handling of his ‘freedom of information’ request and had they upheld his complaint he could reasonably have sought damages for the impact of any failures at court.
13. I have reviewed the information available and I am satisfied Mr X’s concerns have broadly been addressed through the planning officer’s report and the Council’s Stage 2 response to his complaint. I therefore consider it unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation/response or that we could ever get to the point of saying the outcome should have been different. We cannot therefore say any impact from the development should not have taken place or provide a remedy for this.
14. Mr X also has concerns about possible future subsidence, breach of drainage easements and the structural integrity of his property but these are private civil matters between him and the neighbour. We could not hold the Council responsible for the impact of the neighbour’s building work even if we found fault affecting its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman