PP 2010/157

The principal function of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) is to investigate complaints by members of the public who claim to have suffered injustice in consequence of maladministration by a local authority. In 2009-10, more than 18,000 complaints and enquiries were received by the LGO, 17% of which related to planning and building control. Many would have related to the way in which a local planning authority (LPA) had handled a planning matter, but to what extent does this complaints system provide an effective remedy in practical terms? In R (on the application of Gallagher) v Basildon District Council [2010] EWHC 2824 (Admin); [2010] PLSCS 291, the claimants were travellers who had been living on an unauthorised site. Following the exhaustion of the planning process, direct action was authorised to remove them. In that connection, they provided the LPA with personal information about themselves and their children. This was incorporated into a report that was prepared for a meeting of the planning committee of the LPA, and, as such, made available to the press and the public. The claimants complained to the LGO, alleging that the decision to publish the information breached the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and violated their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The LGO upheld the complaint, and recommended that the LPA should send a letter of apology and pay each of the claimants £300. The LPA rejected the recommendation to pay compensation and the claimants sought judicial review of that decision. The court allowed the claim and quashed the LPA’s decision not to follow the LGO’s recommendation. Where an LPA gives reasons for rejecting an LGO recommendation, its decision can be challenged on Wednesbury grounds. In the present case, the LPA had failed to take into account relevant considerations and had taken into account irrelevant ones. Accordingly, its decision should be quashed. However, the judgment should not bring comfort to everyone intending to follow this route. The remedy provided by a successful claim for judicial review in this context is procedural and not substantive, The judge made it clear that although the findings of the LGO as to maladministration and of injustice arising from that maladministration were binding on the LPA, the Local Government Act 1974 does not require it to implement the LGO’s recommendations. The only sanction for failure is adverse publicity. John Martin is a freelance writer