Our findings
Jump to
In each of the cases outlined, the Planning Inspectorate made a mistake.
In Mr A’s and Mr B’s cases, the Planning Inspectorate accepted that they had made an error. In Company C’s and Mr D’s cases, the High Court made that decision. In Mr A’s case, the Planning Inspectorate acknowledged that their mistake had caused him extra costs. In the other cases, the Planning Inspectorate initially told the complainants that they would consider meeting the reasonable costs of their appeals, but then later refused to do so.
Having been responsible for those errors, it was the Planning Inspectorate’s responsibility to put things right. They did not do that. Instead, they told the complainants that they would only pay compensation if the Ombudsman recommended that they do so. The Planning Inspectorate’s decision to close their ex gratia payment scheme was not, in itself, maladministrative; there is no requirement for government organisations to have such a scheme in place. But, with or without a scheme, government organisations do have the power and the responsibility to pay for the impact of their mistakes. The Planning Inspectorate’s approach to remedying complaints in the absence of a formal scheme was not acceptable.
The decision not to pay financial remedies without a recommendation from the Ombudsman meant that the Planning Inspectorate expected individual people, in most cases, to bear the costs of mistakes made by the Planning Inspectorate. That was unfair and unjust.
Their decision was also a false economy. We do not doubt that the Planning Inspectorate had been set a challenging target to reduce their expenditure. However, their decision to stop providing financial remedies to complainants, and to require them instead to complain to us in order to obtain redress, was bound to cost more than it would have done if they had put their mistakes right straight away. It was a false economy and an injustice to the people concerned. In the end, the Planning Inspectorate had to consider each of these cases twice, and that should not have been necessary. The Planning Inspectorate’s approach did not protect public money and was contrary to HM Treasury guidance1 and the Ombudsman’s Principles.
The decisions meant that none of the complainants had their requests for payments properly considered by the Planning Inspectorate. This delayed the resolution of these complaints and caused inconvenience, compounding the impact of the poor service that had occurred in the first place.
Had the Planning Inspectorate properly considered these claims as they should have done, it is likely that they would have made payments to cover the costs claimed. Because they did not do this, the complainants had to complain to us to obtain the redress that they should have received when they first complained to the Planning Inspectorate.
- Managing Public Money, which can be found at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.
