Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his purchase of a property from the Council in 2013 and the condition of the property in the months before the contract was agreed. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X complains late on the 12 month rule and appears to have had a legal remedy at the time.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council refuses to pay for building work at a property he purchased from it early in 2013. Mr X says a structural inspection report in late 2012 revealed work was needed in the cellar where there were props supporting the floor above. Mr X says the props were not there when he viewed the property earlier that year. Mr X says the Council refused to pay for the work and he has pursued the matter with it since. Mr X says the Council was negligent and should pay compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. The Council has provided correspondence in which it explains its position. This includes letters to Mr X dated 3 April 2018 and, following an MP enquiry, 30 September 2019.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says he visited the property several times in 2012 and he believes the props in the cellar were not there. He tells me his complaint is about the purchase of the property and his main point is the Council has failed to provide proof that the props were in place earlier. The Council says it did work to the property in 2011. In November 2012 the Council sent Mr X an offer to buy. Mr X says the offer was accepted on the basis of what had been seen.
7. On 19 December 2012 Mr X’s structural inspection report identified props in the cellar supporting the shop floor above. In January 2013 the Council allowed Mr X to occupy the property/shop under licence. In March 2013 Mr X completed the purchase. Mr X tells me he could not withdraw from the purchase because he had to trade or his business would have closed. He says it would have been too time consuming to find somewhere else.
8. Mr X bought the property as part of a relocation package following a compulsory purchase order covering his previous business location. The Council says it was part of a rectification package. It says it refused to accept Mr X’s claim for the costs for the building work, following the survey, because it was considered ‘betterment’ and did not therefore meet the equivalency principle of the scheme. The Council says Mr X could have withdrawn from the purchase.

Analysis

9. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
1. Events before February 2019 are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction on the 12 month rule (see paragraph 2 above). Mr X complains late about matters he knew about. That includes the survey and purchase of the property in 2012 and 2013 and the Council’s position which is not new. I will not exercise discretion to investigate because Mr X could have complained years earlier. His reason that he has pursued the matter with the Council is not persuasive.
2. Mr X knew about the structural condition of the property before he decided to proceed with the purchase. He could be expected to take legal advice on how to proceed including adjusting the price in view of work required or withdrawing from the purchase. The Council is not responsible for his decisions and there is no reason why it should continue to communicate with Mr X about the matter.
3. A dispute about compensation under a compulsory purchase order, and a claim of negligence, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X has or had legal remedies (see paragraphs 3 and 4). The Council’s comments suggest Mr X could have challenged its refusal to adjust the compensation, for the costs of building works, under the compulsory purchase rules (see paragraph 8). I consider it was reasonable for Mr X to pursue his legal remedies, especially if he wanted to challenge the compensation offered.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his purchase of a property from the Council in 2013 and the condition of the property in the months before the contract was agreed. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X complains late on the 12 month rule and appears to have had a legal remedy at the time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman