Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of the planning officer who dealt with the complainant’s planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the conduct of the planning officer who dealt with his planning application for an extension. Mr X says the officer was rude and arrogant, did not respond to attempts to contact him, and initially proposed amendments which were extreme.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Pv20

4. With regard to the second and third bullet points above, 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, in our view, the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about Mr X’s planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better/differently, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was procedural fault which has caused the complainant a significant injustice.
7. I consider there to be insufficient evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice, so we will not investigate his complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the officer attempted to visit Mr X’s property on two occasions, and was able to view the application site and take photographs from the neighbouring property instead. The officer was entitled to reach a professional judgement that they had sufficient information upon which to determine the application.
• it is common practice for officers to communicate with the agent rather than the applicant, primarily to ensure that limited resources are used efficiently and that information is conveyed clearly and consistently. Nonetheless, I note the Council has apologised for any distress caused by the officer not responding to Mr X’s communications.
• whilst I understand a brick wall was initially suggested as an amendment by the officer, the alternative suggested by Mr X’s agent was ultimately accepted.
• the application was approved, ahead of the 8-week target determination date.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman