Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s response to a planning application for a commercial development. There is not enough evidence of fault and there is no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Authority failed to highlight what he believed to be significant fire safety risks, when it responded as a consultee on a planning application. Mr X said this meant the relevant planning authority may now approve a commercial development.
2. Mr X said if there was a large fire, this may expose him to an unnecessary risk of pollution and now wants the Authority to reconsider its assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained because he said the Authority took a narrow a view on its statutory responsibilities, and it should have taken a more proactive view by raising an objection to a planning application. Mr X said the Authority should have done this because of its knowledge of previous fire incidents in its area and he now has the concern the planning authority may approve the application.
6. The Authority responded to Mr X’s complaint and set out its responsibilities as a statutory consultee. It explained it had considered the assessment of the response and why it believed it met with its responsibilities. Mr X said he believed there was a legal argument the Authority was not upholding its duty under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.
7. Only the courts can definitively say whether an Authority has followed its legal duty. Instead, we can only consider whether there is maladministration in how an Authority has taken a decision. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and this means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong.
8. We are unlikely to find fault in this case. This is because the Authority appears to have considered its decision-making and have explained how it had regard to the law and the circumstances of Mr X's complaint.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation.
10. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. Mr X is unhappy about the possibility of an application being approved by the planning authority because of the Authority’s inaction. Because this planning authority has not yet decided, there is no significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and there is no significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman