The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide the pre-application planning advice he paid for, and that it was also late in responding to his complaint through its complaint’s procedure. We did not investigate the complaints further because we cannot provide the remedy Mr X wants or any other meaningful outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complained he did not get the service he expected when he paid the Council for pre-application planning advice.
Mr X said that when he later complained about the poor service, the Council was late in its response to his complaint.
Mr X said he paid for a service he did not get and as a result of the delays, he paid more for building materials, as costs rose significantly during this time.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files. I read details of the Council’s pre-application planning advice service on its website.
I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
Background
Mr X bought land that had planning permission to build a house. He wanted to make changes to the house, that included: changes to the roof material and design; and measures to make the house more sustainable.
Mr X sought pre-application planning advice from the Council. He wanted it to confirm that the changes he had proposed were non-material amendments, so no further planning application would be required.
Mr X said the Council’s response was late and did nothing more than explain he would need to submit a planning application. Mr X was disappointed he had not had the opportunity to discuss the changes with the office who had provided the response, as the Council’s website had indicated this would happen.
Mr X said he complained about the service he had received and gave the Council the opportunity to resolve the problem by refunding the fee he had paid for planning advice. Mr X said the Council was again late to respond and did not resolve his complaints.
Mr X said he did eventually get advice directly from a conservation officer. He applied for planning permission for the changes, which was granted.
Pre-application planning advice Mr X complained he paid for a service for the Council to provide planning advice, but the Council did not provide that advice or a satisfactory service. Mr X said the Council’s failures caused significant consequential losses, in addition to the fees paid for a service that was not provided.
The Council says it did provide advice, as it told him he would need to apply for planning permission. The Council said it had discretion as to whether to discuss issues before giving written planning advice.
We investigate complaints of fault in decision making processes that cause injustice to individuals. However, not all services that Council’s provide fall within our remit.
Councils may enter into contracts with other bodies or individuals, and when this happens their actions are regulated by the terms and conditions that apply to the contract.
Consumer contracts for service are regulated by chapter 4 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Other contracts are regulated by part 3 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
Parties to a contract may seek remedies in the civil courts if the service: has not been delivered; delivered within a reasonable time; or not delivered with reasonable care and skill.
Complaint process response We do not normally investigate complaints that are just about complaints procedures. There are several reasons for this, but the main reasons are as follows.
Providing the matter is within our remit, we focus on the main issues that were the original cause for complaint. We would not normally investigate unless we can remedy the substantive issues that lie at the heart or core of the complaint.
We do sometimes investigate complaints procedures, even if there is no personal injustice to the complainant. We may do this if we think it is likely there are significant or systemic complaints process failures that could cause injustice to others. The typical outcome for this type of investigation is a recommendation for service improvements and an apology.
I have checked our records and found no evidence of systemic problems in this Council’s complaints procedure that would justify further investigation.
My findings
Mr X says the service he paid for was not delivered. We are not a court and cannot decide whether the Council was in breach of contract or whether any breach caused the losses Mr X claims.
I decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint service because there was insufficient justification for doing so.
Final decision
I ended my investigation. This is because I cannot achieve the remedy the complainant wants or any other meaningful outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman