Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. Part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault regarding the Council’s pre-application advice in 2023 or to show the advice caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about pre-application planning advice provided by the Council in 2021 and 2023. He says the Council’s 2021 advice failed to take account of the information he provided and the 2023 advice does not provide sufficient detail about the prior approval process. He therefore believes the Council has breached the terms of its contract with him.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s 2021 pre-application advice is late. The Council issued the advice on 4 January 2021 and Mr X did not complain to us about it until 11 August 2023. I have seen no good reasons for the delay in bringing the complaint to us and I have therefore decided not to exercise our discretion to investigate it.
7. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s 2023 is within our 12-month time limit set out at Paragraph 3 as the advice dates from 16 May 2023, but I have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its advice caused Mr X significant injustice.
8. Mr X says he applied for advice from the Council "on how to get planning permission” but this is not the purpose of the service. The Council has explained the pre-application process is there to advise about whether officers think a proposal would be approved and its website says the advice “will help to see whether your proposal requires planning permission or falls under permitted development”, amongst other things.
9. Mr X applied to the Council for advice on whether he may be able to build a house on his land and stated that if he could not, he planned to deforest the land and make use of his permitted development rights to create a modest access road and building.
10. There is no dispute about the Council’s advice regarding the possibility of building a house but Mr X is unhappy about the lack of detail regarding his plan to deforest the land. On this point the Council advised Mr X to consult the Forestry Commission and directed him to the limitations and conditions to his permitted development rights as set out in Part 6, Class E of The Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
11. Mr X is unhappy the Council directed him to the legislation, which he was already aware of, instead of advising him about what materials and construction methods would be acceptable and about the specific requirements for obtaining prior approval for development under Class E. He says this failed to comply with the first two terms of the pre-application advice contract and therefore amounts to a breach of contract.
12. It is not our role to decide if the Council breached the contract; this is a matter for the courts. So if Mr X wishes to claim back the cost of the advice he may wish to take legal advice about this.
13. The issue here is not that the advice provided by the Council is incorrect; rather Mr X believes it should have been more detailed. But it is not for the Council to effectively design Mr X’s development for him by telling him what to apply for. The process exists to advise on the likelihood that a proposal will be approved and there is no suggestion Mr X proposed specific materials or methods of construction for the Council to comment on.
14. Even though the Council’s advice fell short of what Mr X expected it still had some value and the amount Mr X paid for it (£102) is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s complaint about the 2021 advice is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its 2023 advice or to show the advice caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman