Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s highways advice about land ownership. This is because the court is better placed to consider the matter and it is reasonable for the complainant to pursue this matter through the court. We will not investigate part of this complaint as an investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains his planning application was refused due to a recommendation from the Council’s highways team. He says the Council’s recommendation to refuse his planning application was based on incorrect information and says he has been given conflicting advice about land ownership. He says he has spent a significant amount of money on the planning application and the Council’s actions have caused him stress and frustration.
2. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied to the planning authority for consent for a development of three homes. The Council this complaint is against was approached for comment on the proposed development as part of the planning process.
9. The Council, as the highways authority, recommended refusal of planning consent on numerous grounds. One of the reasons related to a land boundary at the entrance to the proposed site. Mr X says the Council initially told him the site borders with highways land however, at a later date, the Council says land between the site and the highway belongs to a third party.
10. Mr X and the Council dispute the boundary of the land and the highway. These are legal matters that the Ombudsman cannot decide and it is reasonable for Mr X to go to court to resolve the boundary dispute.
11. The evidence shows Mr X’s planning application was refused by the planning authority for numerous reasons and the highways recommendation for refusal was not the sole reason planning consent was not given. Should Mr X wish to appeal the planning decision, the Planning Inspectorate is best placed to consider this. Therefore, an investigation by us into whether the Council provided the correct highways evidence to the planning authority would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.
12. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to investigate how a Council has handled a complaint if the substantive matter does not fall to be investigated. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to pursue the matter in court and an investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman