Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to prosecute his neighbour for completing a false ownership certificate as part of their application for planning permission. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and its decision does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to prosecute his neighbour for completing a false ownership certificate when applying for planning permission.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. When applying for planning permission the applicant, or someone acting on their behalf, must complete an ownership certificate. This states they either own all the land to which the application relates, or that any other people with an interest in the land have been notified of the application. The purpose of this is to ensure that anyone with an interest in the land is aware of the application and has the opportunity to comment.
6. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission and completed the ownership certificate stating they owned the land. Mr X disputes this and says the applicant is not shown on the Land Registry entry. He therefore considers the applicant has submitted a false ownership certificate and that the Council has an obligation to prosecute them for this.
7. Firstly, the Council is under no obligation to prosecute anyone for submitting a false ownership certificate. While it may have the power to do so, there is no legal requirement to exercise this power in every case; the Council has discretion and it has explained the reason it will not take action against the applicant in this case, which is that it does not have enough evidence to show the applicant acted fraudulently as it may simple have been an error. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s reasoning and we cannot therefore question its decision.
8. Secondly, the Council’s decision on whether to prosecute Mr X’s neighbour causes Mr X no direct or significant injustice. The development has been judged to be acceptable in planning terms and a technical infringement with the ownership certificate does not invalidate this decision. The fact the neighbour is in a better position than they would be if the Council did prosecute them is not an injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the decision not to prosecute the neighbour does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman