The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case involving Mr X’s development. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council wrongly accused him of breaching a planning condition in relation to his development and that it took his solicitors’ involvement to get the Council to accept his earlier presented evidence that no breach had occurred. He seeks an apology and the reimbursement of his legal costs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council that it had wrongly accused him of breaching a planning condition in relation to his development despite a case officer having earlier told him that no breach had occurred and recommending the closure of the case. He says the Council then told him he had to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Use in relation to the breach even though his consultant had told him this was not necessary and that he also felt compelled to use solicitors whose contact led to the Council accepting the same evidence he had presented at the outset.
In responding to his complaint, the Council explained the case officer had made a recommendation to close the case but that the enforcement manager had decided the evidence provided did not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and he had been told to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Use which would give a binding decision, in accordance with standard practice.
It had been Mr X’s decision to obtain advice from his planning consultant and then engage solicitors when he did not want to follow the route of applying for a Certificate of Lawful Use. The Council had not recommended he do so and matters could have been resolved by Mr X acting as a lay person and submitting a formal complaint or applying for the Certificate.
We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met and here there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman