The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about incorrect planning advice he received from the Council. This is because an investigation would not add to the investigation undertaken by the Council.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council advised him that planning permission was not needed for a change he wanted to make to his property. Mr B then did the building work based on this advice.
The Council later told Mr B the work was unauthorised and was being investigated. Mr B says even though the Council later granted retrospective planning permission, the incorrect advice caused him significant distress, reputational damage, and fear of legal action.
Mr B would like the Council to pay him compensation and remove or amend the enforcement entry from the public planning record for his property.
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 an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B and planning records online.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has accepted this advice was wrong.
The Council apologised to Mr B and waived the planning application fee, which Mr B would have had to pay had there been no fault.
Also, the Council promptly decided Mr B’s retrospective planning application. This was a suitable response from the Council.
The grant of retrospective planning permission puts right the alleged breach of planning control. This will be clear to interested parties such as prospective purchasers of Mr B’s property in future.
It is highly unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would result in us asking the Council to take further action or make a financial payment to Mr B.
So, an investigation is not justified.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because an investigation would not add to the Council’s own investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman