The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application or her request for pre-application planning advice. This is because the complainant has appealed, or could have appealed, to the Planning Inspector. Parts of the complaint are also late and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
The complaint
Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her planning applications and her request for pre-application planning advice. Ms X has also complained the Council wrongly accused her of damaging the highway.
Ms X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with her complaints.
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 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 law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended) 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We cannot investigate Ms X’s concerns about the Council’s decision to refuse her planning application as she used her right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Ms X could have also appealed to the Inspector if she disagreed with the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Certificate of Lawful Development. I consider it would have been reasonable for Ms X to have used her right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
Ms X has also complained about how the Council dealt with her request for pre-application planning advice. However, I consider Ms X’s concerns about the pre-application advice late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been about five years since Ms X requested planning advice from the Council. Ms X knew about the issues she has now complained about at the time, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Ms X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
Ms X says the Council incorrectly told her she damaged the highway and was liable to pay for the repairs. However, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard. The Council has accepted the letter was sent in error. It has apologised and Ms X has not been required to make any payments.
Ms X has raised concerns about how the Council dealt with her complaints. She says the proper processes were not followed and the Council failed to make any reasonable adjustments to assist her using its complaint service when she requested this. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling. I also do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council dealt with her request for reasonable adjustments as she was still able to complain to the Council.
Ms X has also complained about how the Council has dealt with her request for information. However, Ms X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if she is concerned about how the Council dealt with her Freedom of Information request as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has appealed, or could have appealed, to the Planning Inspector. Parts of the complaint are also late, and Ms X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman