Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s planning applications. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner and to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled her applications, and it is reasonable to expect her to contact the ICO with any data protection concerns.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her planning applications. In particular, she says:
• An officer used personal information from her application for financial gain.
• the case officer failed to adequately communicate with her or her agent during the determination of her applications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. And 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)
5. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister and can consider appeals about:

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

7. Finally, we also normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about Mrs X’s planning applications on the Council’s website.
• The Council’s ‘Development management service guide’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above applies to some of Mrs X’s complaint. This is because one the applications she is complaining about was refused in August 2023, yet she did not contact the Ombudsman until September 2024. I see no good reasons to exercise to discretion to investigate Mrs X’s concerns about the handling of that application.
10. In addition, and with reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, if Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse her application, I see no good reasons why she should not be expected to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector. So, we would not investigate any parts of the complaint related to the outcome of her application.
11. And even if these restrictions did not apply, I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X’s applications to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• When the Council identified a conflict of interest, it changed the case officer allocated to one of Mrs X’s applications. It says the original case officer had no further involvement in the matter.
• The Council’s ‘Development management service guide’ says:

“Planning Officers are unable to provide progress updates during the course of an application. We are unable to advise you of the likely outcome of the application during the course of the application. Revised plans and additional information will not usually be accepted, unless specifically requested by the case officer. We are unlikely to enter into ad-hoc correspondence during the course of an application.”

• The case officer did accept amended plans on one of Mrs X’s later applications.

12. And with reference to paragraph 7 above, I see no good reasons why Mrs X should not be expected to raise her concerns with the ICO about an officer allegedly accessing her personal data. So, the Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• it is reasonable to expect her to have complained to us sooner.
• it is reasonable to expect her to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.
• notwithstanding these restrictions, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled her applications.
• it is reasonable to expect her to contact the ICO with any data protection concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman