Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of her family’s planning applications and her claimed losses totalling more than £150,000. This is because she used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to challenge the Council’s decision to refuse the application the losses relate to and if she disagreed with the Council’s decisions on any other applications it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. We will not investigate Mrs X’s remaining concerns as they fall outside our time limit for investigation, relate to matters which did not cause her significant injustice and are issues more appropriate for the Information Commissioner and the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s actions in dealing with her family’s planning applications and enforcement matters over a 10-year period. She claims her family has lost more than £150,000 as a result of an application the Council refused, which the Planning Inspectorate later granted planning permission for on appeal. She also says the Council’s actions have caused her to develop an anxiety disorder.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal but cannot investigate if the person has already appealed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

6. 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)
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mrs X would like us to look at a wider pattern of treatment by the Council over a 10-year period but this is not our role. We must consider complaints about specific incidents and where Mrs X was aware of those incidents for more than 12 months before she complained to us they fall outside our jurisdiction to investigate as set out at Paragraph 6. I have considered whether to exercise our discretion to investigate these issues but I have seen no good reasons to do so.
11. We also cannot investigate any complaint about matters which carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, as it would have been reasonable for Mrs X or her family to use this, or where they have already used their right of appeal. We cannot therefore find fault in the Council’s refusal of Mrs X’s planning application which the Planning Inspectorate overturned on appeal, or recommend the Council reimburses Mrs X for the losses she claims which total more than £150,000. We also will not investigate whether the Council should have approved Mrs X’s application to discharge a planning condition or whether it was correct to insist she use specific materials which she believes are unnecessary.
12. Mrs X also raises other issues including the Council’s decision to put the family’s applications to its planning committee and its alleged refusal to remove what she says in an antisemitic slur from its website but there is no basis for us to investigate these points further. This is because the Council was entitled to take the action it did and these actions did not cause Mrs X significant injustice. Local councillors ‘called in’ several applications to the Council’s planning committee, as they were entitled to do, and any refusal of their applications was a matter for the appeals process. The Council explained to Mrs X that the term was not discriminatory but it removed it within 10 days of Mrs X’s complaint anyway.
13. Mrs X’s complaint also raises concerns about the Council’s handling of her information requests and possible breaches of the General Data Protection Regulations but these are matters for the Information Commissioner with any claim for damages a matter for the courts.
14. Finally, Mrs X complains about a legal agreement her father entered into with the Council in relation to a grant of planning permission. She says she has evidence of emails between the Council and her lawyer which suggested the agreement was not enforceable and that her father relied on this when deciding to sign it. But it was for Mrs X’s father to seek his own legal advice on the agreement and whether it is enforceable is ultimately a matter for the courts. The Council says it confirmed the agreement was enforceable and has advised Mrs X to apply for a deed of variation if they wish to alter it. It is not for us to bypass this process or rule on the agreement’s validity and enforceability.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because several of the issues Mrs X complains about fall outside our jurisdiction and the remaining issues have not caused Mrs X significant injustice. We cannot provide a remedy for Mrs X’s consequential losses as they relate to a decision against which she has appealed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman