Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a new housing development. This is because we cannot say the Council’s decision caused the injustice Mr X claims.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider road safety when granting planning permission a new housing development accessed via his road. He says numerous heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) use the road for access and one of them crashed into his car causing significant damage. Mr X is unhappy that he has been without his car for two weeks and was forced to claim on his insurance, likely leading to an increase in his premium when he comes to renew. He is also concerned there may be further crashes in the future.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council granted planning permission for the development in 2019 and sent a consultation letter to Mr X’s property at the time. But Mr X did not live at the property so did not object to the application; he purchased it some two years later.
5. Because Mr X bought his property after the Council’s decision to grant planning permission we could not say the decision caused him injustice. He is only affected by the decision now as a result of his purchase and he would or should have been aware of the planning permission when deciding to proceed with the purchase. Had Mr X felt access arrangements for the site were unsuitable and dangerous he could have chosen not to buy the property, and the price likely reflected the planning permission which was in place.
6. In any event, the injustice Mr X claims- which lies in the damage to Mr X’s car- is not the direct result of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development. Rather it was the result of the actions of an HGV driver, which we could not hold the Council responsible for. Mr X’s remedy for this lies in a claim against the driver or company involved and their insurance company, which will now be a matter for Mr X’s insurers to pursue.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot hold the Council responsible for the injustice Mr X claims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman