The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of three planning applications. Two of the complaints are late and we have seen no reason to exercise discretion. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the most recent planning application which has been withdrawn.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mrs J, says the Council Validated a planning application with a fraudulent ownership certificate Knowingly granted planning permission for an application with a fraudulent ownership certificate Failed to declare all objections and information on three specific planning applications Failed to take objections from neighbours into account when granting planning permission Mrs J also complains the Council failed to meet deadlines when responding to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act and its complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done.
(Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs J, including the Council’s responses to her complaint. I also considered the information about the planning applications available on the Council’s website.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council received three planning applications, I will refer to as applications A, B and C.
Application A was received in 2017. Mrs J objected to the application and advised the Council the applicant had fraudulently completed ownership A certificate. The application was withdrawn in 2017. This complaint is therefore late. Mrs J was aware of the withdrawal. I see no reason to exercise discretion and investigate this late complaint.
Application B was received in 2017. Mrs J objected the application. The Planning Officer’s report includes her full comments. The Council granted planning permission in 2018. However, the owner did not implement the permission, which is now expired. Mrs J was aware of the grant of planning permission at the time. I see no reason to exercise discretion and investigate this late complaint.
Application C was received in 2021. Mrs J objected to the application. The applicant withdrew it, also in 2021. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the application.
Mrs J believes the Council should prosecute the applicants for completing the wrong ownership certificates. But Certificate B was completed for Application B, therefore Mrs J did not suffer any injustice on this point.
It is for the Council to decide whether to prosecute the applicant for completion of the wrong certificates. For planning applications A and C, the Council decided prosecution was not necessary as both applications were withdrawn.
On concerns about the Council’s failure to meet deadlines. It is reasonable to expect Mrs J to refer her concerns about the Council’s responses to freedom of information requests to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). That is because this is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Finally, while we would expect the Council to respond according to its complaints policy, I do not propose to investigate this issue further. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs J’s complaint because her concerns about applications A and B are too late. Application C has been withdrawn and there is not enough evidence of fault leading to significant personal injustice in the way the Council processed the application.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman