Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning matters as there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• delayed removing abusive messages from its website. The messages caused distress and prompted further third party abuse;
• did not consider a planning application properly;
• refuses to act on new information relating to a planning decision;
• is wrong to expect her to report any breaches of planning control.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of Town Councils. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. There is not enough evidence to show the Council delayed dealing with a direct request from Mrs X to remove abusive messages. Further, the Council has no control over a third party posting a message initially, and no control over how any other third party reacts to that message. Therefore, I could not say any fault by the Council directly caused Mrs X injustice.
8. The Council produced a case officer report which shows it assessed a planning application in line with law and policy. Its complaint response further explained its decision making to Mrs X. That Mrs X disagrees is not evidence of fault. The case officer was not obliged to liaise with Mrs X at the level she wanted. And I cannot comment on the actions of the Town Council.
9. The Council told Mrs X it did not respond to her communications as these related to matters previously considered by it and the Ombudsman. There is not enough evidence of fault.
10. The Council invites the public to report any breaches of planning control in line with its policy. The Council has no duty to proactively monitor or act otherwise. There is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman