Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a neighbour encroaching on a property Miss X intends to buy from the Council. It was reasonable to expect Miss X to appeal to the District Valuer to have the property valued, any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcomes Miss X seeks.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains a neighbour is encroaching on property she intends to buy from the Council under the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme, and the Council has failed to resolve the issue. Miss X says the matter is distressing her and wants the Council to either reduce the price of the property or enforce the boundary.
2. Miss X also complains about the Council’s communication and complaints handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X applied to buy her home from the Council through RTB. During the application process, Miss X was informed the neighbouring property encroached onto Miss X’s garden by abound 20 inches.
7. If a Council tenant claims the right to buy their home, the Council offers a purchase price based on a valuation. The tenant has the right to ask the District Valuer to decide any disagreement about a property’s value. (Housing Act 1985, section 128)
8. Miss X says she approached the District Valuer to revalue the house considering the boundary issue, but then decided not to revalue the house because they believed the Council word resolve the boundary issue. I have seen no evidence the Council said it would correct the boundary. Even if it did say so, it would still have been reasonable to expect Miss X to see the district valuation through to completion. The law expressly provides this route to resolve such points. The District Valuer has the expertise to resolve disagreements about value and can make a binding decision the Council must follow. The Ombudsman does not have that expertise or power.
9. The Council decided it would not be proportionate or a good use of resources to enforce the boundary, and told Miss X of the decision. As the Council owns the property any significance injustice arising from the decision would be the Council’s, rather than Miss X’s. In any event, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for coming to a reasoned decision and could not compel the Council to enforce the original boundary.
10. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. It was reasonable to expect Miss X to appeal to the District Valuer to have the property valued, any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcomes Miss X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman