Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered planning matters and handled his complaint. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council gave him inconsistent advice. He says it failed to determine his application in time, and its complaint handling was poor. Mr X says he was discriminated against because he is not a local developer. He says this has caused delay and significant financial costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X bought a property and applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness. He says he spoke to a Council officer who told him it would be unlikely to succeed and to submit a planning permission form instead.
6. The Council said the Local Validation Checklist on its website provides the correct information, and that it had written to Mr X twice to explain what information it needed to validate his application. It said it was Mr X’s decision to withdraw his application.
7. The Council wrote to Mr X promptly to explain what information it needed to consider his application. It says Mr X did not provide the information it requested.
8. I will not investigate this complaint. It was Mr X’s decision to withdraw his application. The Council apologised for the confusion caused by the advice it gave Mr X over the telephone. It expressed regret for Mr X’s financial situation but explained it must comply with its legal duties across all the applications it receives.
9. The Council wrote to Mr X on two occasions specifically asking for the information it needed to consider his application. Mr X did not supply the information. I do not consider the injustice is significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman