The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. This is because the substantive issues are not separable from a planning appeal. In addition, of the remaining elements, there is no significant injustice, and elements are better considered by the Information Commissioners Officer.
The complaint
Mrs X complained that a delegated report in support of a planning application included false information. She also complained the report is in the public domain and could result in reputational damage.
Miss X complained this may have breached her rights under the General Data Protection Act (GDPR).
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended) 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I considered the relevant documents on the Council’s planning website.
My assessment
Mrs X complained the Council mislead the public and her clients with the content of a delegation report it completed in support of a planning application.
The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister and considers appeals about a decision to refuse planning permission.
Mrs X appealed to the Planning Inspector on the Council’s decision relating to the planning application. Because the Planning Inspector will examine how the Council made its decision, Mrs X complaint is not separable from the appeal and therefore we cannot investigate this matter because of the legislation I have highlighted at paragraph three.
Mrs X also complained the delegation report could lead to potential reputational damage. In this element of the complaint any injustice there may be here, is not significant enough to justify us investigating.
In relation to Mrs X’s complaint that there has been a breach of her rights under GDPR because she believed there is false information in a public record. This is best considered by the Information Commissioners Officer.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the substantive issues are not separable for the planning appeal. In addition, of the remaining elements, there is no significant injustice, and elements are better considered by the Information Commissioners Officer.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman