Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the removal of a restrictive covenant affecting his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains about the way the Council handled negotiations concerning the lifting of a restrictive covenant affecting his property. He says he has suffered as a result if its delay, poor communication and misleading information and that it has failed to adequately investigate his complaint about this matter. As a remedy for his complaint he says the Council should reduce the figure it will charge him for removing the covenant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Some years ago Mr B bought his property to which a restrictive covenant had been attached by the Council which restricts the use of the property to that of a single private dwelling house.
5. Mr B wants to sell his property and earlier in 2019 the solicitors of prospective purchasers, who had intended to use the property as a second home/holiday let, contacted the Council to seek the removal of the covenant.
6. The Council used the services of an independent company to act on its behalf in coming to a suggested valuation on the cost of the covenant removal. The company’s worker, Mr X, gave a valuation of £3,000 to the prospective purchasers’ solicitors. The purchase fell through and a month later, following an assessment by the Council, Mr B’s solicitors were told the cost would be £10,000. It was at this stage Mr B became aware that Mr X had needed to get the Council’s approval on the proposed valuation.
7. Mr B complained about this matter to the Council. It explained that Mr X had negotiated with the solicitors of the prospective purchasers, subject to the Council’s instructions, and that this had later been explained to Mr B’s solicitors. The Council explained the rationale behind its decision on the valuation and, while noting a recommendation would be made to ensure increased dialogue between the company and the Council, it did not uphold Mr B’s complaint.

Assessment

8. While I understand Mr B is disappointed that the Council’s view of the valuation for removing the covenant did not match Mr X’s, the decision is one for the Council to make. The Ombudsman cannot review the merits of its decision and there is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman on how it dealt with the matter.
9. Mr B says he has been caused injustice because he now has to pay the higher figure. However, his injustice is not that the cost is £7,000 more but rather that his expectations were mistakenly raised. He is in no significantly different position than if he had been told the Council valuation was £10,000 at the outset.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman