Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communications with Ms X in relation to a planning application for a development site close to her home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not inform her of the final plans for a housing development close to her property which will impact on her amenity. She says she did not get letters about the final plans and did not get the opportunity to object. She says the Council should rearrange the lay out of the site so she is not so overlooked.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council consulted residents and other shareholders on the original proposed scheme and on the amended scheme which was modified to reflect feedback it received.
7. In responding to Ms X’s complaint that she did not receive letters about the development and missed the opportunity to object, the Council said it had seen evidence of the letters that had been sent out to residents which invited their comments on the plans. It said that after every letter, calls and correspondence had been logged which allowed it to conclude reasonable steps had been taken to send the communications to all residents in Ms X’s road and the wider area and that her address had been on the mailing list. It said it could not say why she had not receive the letters but that it had no reason to doubt they had been sent.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
9. Ms X’s address was on the residents’ mailing list and while it is unfortunate that she did not receive the letters as other residents did, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council which warrants investigation.
10. Moreover, even if Ms X had submitted her objections, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the outcome on the application would have been different.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman