Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of monies owed by the complainant in connection with his purchase of formally owned Council land. This is because Mr Z’s complaint refers to alleged negligence and points of law which are best resolved through the courts. We do not consider there is any exceptional reason why Mr Z cannot take the matters alleged to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr Z) is making a complaint about alleged negligence by the Council with respect to an assessment of monies owed in connection to land he purchased from it. He says the amount determined is flawed and points to defects and issues with his contract with the Council. Further, Mr Z explains the Council has wrongly threatened repossession of the land through the courts.
2. In summary, Mr Z says he has lived in fear for two years due to the actions of the Council. He says the Council has assessed him in error as being liable for approximately £170,000. As a desired outcome, Mr Z wants us to obtain the Council’s case reviews into the alleged fault and share these with him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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).
4. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. On the evidence, it is clear that Mr Z is formally in legal dispute with the Council. I also note he points to negligence by the Council, as well as contractual issues which he feels undermines the Council’s assessment of monies owed. Decisions on contractual interpretation and whether an organisation has been negligent usually involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way at evidence as only the court can to make its findings. In addition, only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation. I also cannot decide whether an organisation has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages or decide the legal issues Mr Z refers to. I would usually expect someone in Mr Z’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through his insurers. I do not consider there is any exceptional reason why Mr Z cannot do this and so we will not investigate this complaint.
7. Separately, I recognise that Mr Z’s desired outcome is obtaining the Council’s case reviews into the Council faults he alleges and sharing these with him. However, Mr Z has submitted a subject access request to the Council under the Data Protection Act 2018 to obtain this information and so I expect he will receive this information through that process. If Mr Z is dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to his data request, I consider he could reasonably complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because I consider Mr Z could reasonably take the issues subject to his complaint to court and the ICO which is the appropriate body for data protection matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman