LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other

Leeds City Council

22-002-470 · Planning › Other · Decision date: 05 June 2022 · View Leeds City Council scorecard

Full Decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: Mr B complains the Council misled the Planning Inspector and miscalculated the amount he had to pay in costs. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint because Mr B appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on the substantive issue.

The complaint

The complainant, I shall call Mr B, complains the Council misled the Planning Inspectorate which led to his having to pay inflated costs to the Council.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended) The courts have said that where we cannot investigate a complaint about the main or underlying issue, we cannot normally investigate related issues either. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration in England [2006] EWHC 2847 (Admin)) The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about: delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission a decision to refuse planning permission conditions placed on planning permission a planning enforcement notice.

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mr B appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decision to refuse a Prior Approval application for enlargement of a house by construction of an additional storey.

The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal. He also awarded costs to the Council.

Mr X says the Council misled the Planning Inspector and miscalculated the claim for costs to an extent which could be interpreted as fraud. He wants the Council to either refund a part of the £2,000 he had to pay or make an equivalent donation to charity.

However, the courts have held that these matters are out of jurisdiction for the reason given in paragraph 3 above. This applies even if the appeal process cannot resolve all the issues raised.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint for the reasons explained in paragraphs two to four above.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman