Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 011 920)

    Statement Not upheld Land 27-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs C says the Council told her she could acquire land to the rear of her house by 'adverse possession'. She says, as a result of this advice, she built on the land which the Council then sold to her neighbour. She says she incurred expense in building gates and other structures. The Council was not at fault. There is no evidence it gave Mrs C this advice. Its decision to sell the land to her neighbour was in line with its policy.

  • Pendle Borough Council (19 012 636)

    Statement Not upheld Land 27-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council disposed of a piece of greenspace land. Mr X said the loss has been detrimental to himself and other local people. There was no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Hampshire County Council (19 002 753)

    Statement Upheld Land 23-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council agreed to deal exclusively with Mr X when he was buying a house from it. Mr X then spent £2,000 on searches and a survey. The Council received a higher offer and withdrew from the sale to Mr X. The Council will repay Mr X the £2,000 and pay him £250 for his time and trouble.

  • Thanet District Council (19 007 102)

    Statement Upheld Land 17-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in its handling of a property matter. The Council will apologise and do the legal property work at a reduced fee to remedy the injustice caused.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 089)

    Statement Not upheld Land 10-Jan-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in requiring Mr Y to remediate contaminated land via the use of conditions attached to his planning permission.

  • Surrey County Council (19 006 269)

    Statement Not upheld Land 23-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will has discontinued his investigation into Mr C's complaint about how the Council placed safeguarding restrictions on his property. This is because the events happened too long ago to allow for a rigorous investigation. Furthermore, Mr C can serve a blight notice to the Council, and appeal to the Land Tribunal.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 008 055)

    Statement Upheld Land 17-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council is at fault for not registering a notice on the land registry and not communicating with him. The Council has registered the notice and apologised for its delay and inadequate communication.

  • London Borough of Ealing (19 004 850)

    Statement Upheld Land 27-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the process the Council followed when he complained about changes to a boundary fence on land behind his property. There was no fault in the Council's actions. However, there was fault in the way it responded to the complaint. The Council agreed to send a written apology to Mr X for the fault identified with its complaint handling.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 843)

    Statement Not upheld Land 05-Nov-2019

    Summary: A Residents Association complains at the Council's decision to market land for sale without carrying out public consultation. We do not uphold the complaint finding that officers were not under a duty to carry out such consultation.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 002 146)

    Statement Upheld Land 04-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council agreed to sell him some land before withdrawing from the deal. The Council's original agreement to sell the land to Mr X was against its own Land Disposal Policy. The Council's actions and poor advice led to Mr X incurring legal fees. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mr X to remedy his injustice.