The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to sell the complainant land. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the complainants request. Other elements of the complaint happened too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now. If the complainant believes the Council is responsible for significant financial loses, it would be reasonable to expect him to pursue this through the courts.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council has dealt with his requests to purchase land next to his home which he wanted to use to redevelop his home. Mr X says the Council has mismanaged the issue since 2013, resulting in considerable financial loss.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
The complainant has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
My assessment
Between 2013 and 2016 Mr X communicated with the Council about the option of purchasing land close to his home to enable redevelopment. Mr X submitted a planning application but was told the land was not for sale. Mr X again contacted the Council in 2019 and asked it to sell him the land, it refused, so Mr X complained receiving a final response in August 2019.
Between January and December 2020, discussions about the sale continued. The Council told Mr X that the sale of the land was dependent on planning approval and public consultation. Mr X submitted a planning application in December 2020, which was approved in June 2021.
In January 2021, the Council introduced a new policy which included details about how public consultation on the sale of council owned land would be carried out. In August the Council consulted with residents who lived close to the land and almost all residents objected to its sale. The Council considered the results of the consultation and concluded that the advantages of the development were outweighed by the disadvantages to existing residents. Mr X complains about the decision and about the new policy being used to determine the consultation, despite him submitting his planning application before the policy was introduced.
I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with this matter between 2013 and August 2019. This is because these events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complaint could have been brought to the Ombudsman sooner, either in 2016 when the Council made its initial decision not to sell the land, or in 2019 when the Council issued a final response to Mr X under its complaints procedure.
I will also not investigate how the Council dealt with more recent matters because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council informed Mr X that approval of the sale was dependent on planning approval followed by a public consultation exercise. Whilst Mr X did submit his planning application prior to the Council’s new policy being introduced, the consultation exercise is a separate process to the planning process.
I have considered the policy and I am satisfied that the land in question met the criteria under the Council’s new policy. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to consult with residents in accordance with this new policy. The Council has also said that even in the absence of this policy, there still would have been a public consultation. Therefore, any claim that the outcome would have been different is speculative.
I will not investigate the Council’s final decision not to sell him the land. This is because the Council considered the results from the residents, which were overwhelmingly against the sale, and reached a decision that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. It fully explained its reasons for reaching this decision. This is a decision it was entitled to make, and we therefore cannot question the merits of it. Whilst Mr X may strongly disagree, this does not mean the Council has done anything wrong. Mr X says the reasons given for refusing contradict the reasons the Council gave when planning approval was given. However, the two processes are separate.
Finally, the level of financial losses Mr X says he has incurred due to the actions of the Council are considerable. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to pursue these loses through the courts. Only the courts can consider the issue of liability and award damages.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and some elements either happened too long ago or should be pursued via the courts.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman