Ombudsman rejects complaint in case where complainant alleged she had lost £150k+ due to handling of planning applications

A woman who complained to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman about a planning dispute she claims cost her £150,000 has been told the Ombudsman cannot investigate her complaint.

The Ombudsman rejected her complaint after finding she had already used her right to appeal the matter in an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

It also refused to investigate further aspects of her complaint, noting that they were better suited for the Information Commissioner and the courts.

The complainant, referred to in an Ombudsman report as 'Mrs X', claimed that Elmbridge Borough Council's handling of her family's planning applications and enforcement matters had led to losses totalling more than £150,000 over a 10-year period.

She contended that her family had lost the money as a result of an application the council refused, which the Planning Inspectorate later granted planning permission for on appeal.

She also claimed that the council's actions had caused her to develop an anxiety disorder.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Mrs X requested that the watchdog look at a wider pattern of treatment by the council over the decade-long period.

However, the Ombudsman said this type of investigation is not in its role.

"We must consider complaints about specific incidents and where Mrs X was aware of those incidents for more than 12 months before she complained to us they fall outside our jurisdiction to investigate," the watchdog's report said.

The Ombudsman also concluded that it cannot investigate any complaint about matters which carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, as it would have been reasonable for Mrs X or her family to use this, or where they have already used their right of appeal.

"We cannot therefore find fault in the council's refusal of Mrs X's planning application which the Planning Inspectorate overturned on appeal, or recommend the council reimburses Mrs X for the losses she claims," the report added.

"We also will not investigate whether the council should have approved Mrs X's application to discharge a planning condition or whether it was correct to insist she use specific materials which she believes are unnecessary."

Mrs X also raised other issues including the council’s decision to put the family’s applications to its planning committee and its alleged refusal to remove what she said was in an antisemitic slur from its website.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that there was no basis for it to investigate these points further.

"This is because the council was entitled to take the action it did and these actions did not cause Mrs X significant injustice. Local councillors ‘called in’ several applications to the council’s planning committee, as they were entitled to do, and any refusal of their applications was a matter for the appeals process." 

According to the Ombudsman's report, the council explained to Mrs X that the term was not discriminatory, but it was removed from the site within 10 days of her complaint anyway.

Mrs X’s complaint also raised concerns about the council’s handling of her information requests and possible breaches of the General Data Protection Regulations. However, the Ombudsman suggested that these were matters for the Information Commissioner with any claim for damages a matter for the courts.

Finally, Mrs X complained about a legal agreement her father entered into with the council in relation to a grant of planning permission.

She claimed she had evidence of emails between the council and her lawyer, which suggested the agreement was not enforceable and that her father relied on this when deciding to sign it.

"But it was for Mrs X's father to seek his own legal advice on the agreement and whether it is enforceable is ultimately a matter for the courts," the Ombudsman's report said.

The council meanwhile said that it had confirmed that the agreement was enforceable and had advised Mrs X to apply for a deed of variation if they wished to alter it.

The Ombudsman said it could not bypass this process or rule on the agreement's validity and enforceability.

Adam Carey