The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning applications. He has had access to an alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the Planning Inspector.
The complaint
Mr X said the Council mishandled his planning applications over four years through excessive delays, contradictory advice, ignoring correspondence, and inaccurate information. He said officers gave inconsistent guidance, causing unnecessary redesigns and costs. He also complained about the Council’s complaint handling and its responses to data access requests.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.(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) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I note that pre-planning advice given by a planning authority is not binding.
A refusal to validate a planning application, a delay of longer than eight weeks in determining a planning application, and a refusal of a planning application all carry a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to use these rights as an alternative remedy.
The Information Commissioner has powers we lack to compel data disclosure and to impose penalties. Even if the complaint were one we would otherwise investigate, the Information Commissioner would be better placed than us to consider these data matters.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: He has had an alternative remedy available by way of appeal to the Planning Inspector; The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider data access matters; and It is not a good use of resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as we are not investigating the substantive matters.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman