Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant’s land is incorrectly designated in the Council’s planning policies, as the designation was based on an out-of-date map. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, the events occurred too long ago, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner about the Council’s responses to freedom of information requests.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says that when the Council was setting its planning policies in 1993, it used an out-of-date map which did not correctly show the residential use of land adjacent to a site he owns. He says this resulted in his land being wrongly designated as a strategic gap between settlements, and the Council has therefore refused subsequent planning applications to develop it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. And 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)
5. In addition, 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.
6. Finally, we can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into any complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above applies to Mr X’s complaint. This is because he has been aware of the allegedly incorrect designation of his land for many years. I see no reasons why he was prevented from complaining to us sooner, so the Ombudsman will not exercise discretion to consider this late complaint now.
9. And even if the 12-month time restriction did not apply, given that the events being complained about occurred so long ago, I do not consider it would be possible for the Ombudsman to conduct a fair and sound investigation into these matters now.
10. In addition, the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking. We have no power to adjudicate in a dispute about planning designations, or to direct the Council to change the designation of Mr X’s land.
11. Finally, if Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s responses to his freedom of information requests, it seems reasonable to expect him to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner, the events occurred too long ago, we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking, and it is reasonable to expect him to contact the Information Commissioner about the Council’s responses to his freedom of information requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman