Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council was at fault for delays in handling their planning application, causing them a financial loss and distress. We find the Council is at fault, but it has already made a suitable offer to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of their planning application. Mr and Mrs X say the Council were responsible for a delay of around three and a half months in getting a decision which has caused them financial loss and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mr and Mrs X about their complaint and considered information they provided. I considered information received from the Council. I also considered our published guidance on remedies.
5. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
7. Mr and Mrs X purchased land that had planning permission approved to develop a property on it. However, as the approved development did not align with their plans, Mr and Mrs X applied for a variation of the permission.
8. The Council acknowledged Mr and Mrs X’s application and validated it on its planning portal.
9. Around 14 weeks after validating the application, the Council notified Mr and Mrs X it had deemed it to be invalid and withdrawn it. Mr and Mrs X disagreed with this and provided the Council with caselaw that they felt was relevant to their application. The Council considered this and agreed it had been wrong to invalidate Mr and Mrs X’s application. The Council apologised and said it would re-register the application.
10. The Council then created a new application using the information from Mr and Mrs X’s application for a variation of permission.
11. Mr and Mrs X questioned why the Council had opened a new application rather than reinstating the old one. The Council said it did this to keep a clear audit trail and to add transparency to the process.
12. Mr and Mrs X then complained to the Council. They said the Council had been wrong to withdraw their initial application, and the decision not to reinstate this but to open a new application created further delays. Mr and Mrs X said this meant they were spending more time in rented accommodation than necessary and incurring extra costs as a result.
13. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint to agree it was at fault in the way it had considered their application, and this had caused a delay of around three and a half months. The Council asked Mr and Mrs X to provide evidence of their losses so it could consider a remedy for the injustice caused.
14. Mr and Mrs X provided the Council with a list of costs, which included extra rent, planning advice, additional site insurance and inflationary building costs, amounting to £14,478. Mr and Mrs X also asked for a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the stress caused to them.
15. The Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s submissions and agreed to pay them a total of £5,235. This was made up of their additional rental costs, the planning advice they sought, and a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the distress they were caused.

Analysis

16. The remedies we recommend attempt, as best as possible, to put people affected back in the position they would have been in but for the identified fault. However, it is not always possible to make conclusive findings, even on the balance of probabilities, on exactly what losses have been incurred.
17. The Council has accepted it was at fault for causing a delay of around three and a half months when deciding on Mr and Mrs X’s planning application. This delay caused distress for Mr and Mrs X and meant they incurred additional costs, which is injustice.
18. The Council has already offered to reimburse the additional rent Mr and Mrs X incurred, as well as the planning advice they sought. I find the remedy offered by the Council is sufficient in meeting the direct costs Mr and Mrs X incurred. The Council also offered to pay Mr and Mrs X £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience they were caused. I find this is a suitable remedy to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused in the circumstances.
19. However, Mr and Mrs X have said the offer fails to put them back in the position they should have been in as it does not account for the indirect costs, such as inflationary building costs or additional site insurance.
20. While I can understand Mr and Mrs X’s frustration, it is difficult to precisely quantify the inflationary impact on building costs during the period of delay. There are various factors unrelated to the Council’s actions that could have had an impact. I find it is not possible for me to make a finding, even on the balance of probabilities, as to exactly what additional cost the Council may be responsible for.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I find the Council is at fault for delays in the process of assessing Mr and Mrs X’s planning application, causing them distress and a financial loss. However, I find the Council has already taken reasonable steps to address this. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman