The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a certificate of lawfulness for a development close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to Mr X, says an application for a certificate of lawfulness for a development in his locale was flawed and should not have been registered or granted. He disputes that the work undertaken was sufficient to implement the planning permission for the development and wants the certificate to be cancelled.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with 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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about its decision to accept a flawed application for a certificate of lawfulness and its decision to grant the certificate despite insufficient evidence that the work undertaken had been enough to implement a planning permission that had been due to expire.
The Council acknowledged the work undertaken had been minor in nature but it said it had considered it to be a material operation sufficient to satisfy section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
It is not our role to act as a point of appeal and question the professional judgement of officers. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision, I have seen no evidence fault affected it. Moreover, an investigation by the Ombudsman cannot lead to the outcome Mr X seeks.
Mr X says the Council refused an FOI request he made. The Information Commissioner is the body best placed to deal with such matters.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman