Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept it mis-sold Mr X his house and is therefore not responsible for marking out his parking bays. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to pursue the matter in Court and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s refusal to accept it mis-sold Mr X his house. He says it failed to comply with a condition in the deeds to mark out his parking bays prior to the completion of the sale.
2. Mr X says this has caused trespass to his land and problems with neighbours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information shared by Mr X and the Council’s responses to his complaints. I have also considered Mr X’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr X bought his home over 30 years ago. He was not in possession of the deeds until the completion of his mortgage obligations. When Mr X had access to the deeds, he says it shows the Council were responsible for marking the parking bays in squares in brick pavers with blue brick strips to denote each bay. Mr X asked the Council to mark out the bays as stated in the deeds, but the Council refused. Mr X complained to the Council.
8. In response the Council said it had reviewed the legal document that transferred the property to Mr X. It could not see any record of the Council agreeing to carry out any works in relation to marked parking spaces. It suggested for Mr X to seek legal advice but declined to become involved. Mr X remained unhappy and escalated his complaint with the Council.
9. The Council decided it was not responsible for the marking out of the parking bays. It said it was not possible to tell from the information provided by Mr X whether his property was part of a ’phase 3’ which appeared to be required to be marked out. It also said the obligation to undertake any works within the planning permission was on the developer. However, as more than 10 years has passed it could not take any action regarding a breach of any condition not being provided by the developer. Mr X remains unhappy and wants the Council to mark out his parking bays.

Assessment

10. Mr X’s complaint is a legal matter about the rights and responsibilities following a property transfer over 30 years ago. As the Council does not agree with Mr X’s view, a court is best placed to consider the law and fact that applies to Mr X’s complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint, as it would be reasonable for Mr X to use this right of remedy.
11. In addition, the Ombudsman hold no power to enforce decision on a council. We can therefore not achieve what Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint about mis-selling of a property over 30 years ago. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to pursue the matter in court and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman