Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Scarborough Borough Council (20 006 213)

    Statement Upheld Land 09-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly sold land belonging to his parent's estate and then caused delays transferring the land back. The delays held up the sale of the house and meant Mr X had to pay more council tax. The Council admitted fault for its error in transferring Mr X's parents land to a housing association. It agreed to provide an improved remedy. We did not find the Council at fault for delays transferring the land back to Mr X.

  • Cambridge City Council (20 010 732)

    Statement Upheld Land 08-Jul-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y's complaints about trespass and the determination of his boundary because these are matters which we consider should be settled by the courts. Furthermore, the matter has been ongoing for more than 12 months and Mr Y could have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate Mr Y's claim for criminal damage because we cannot determine whether a crime has occurred and there are other agencies better placed to investigate. Mr Y also complains about other related matters, including the Council's conduct and its handling of his complaint, but we have not investigated the underlying complaint so we will not investigate the related matters. However, we have investigated the Council's application of its policy about 'Unreasonable and Unreasonably Persistent Complainants' and in our view, there is fault causing injustice to Mr Y.

  • London Borough of Sutton (20 011 097)

    Statement Upheld Land 03-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council managed a compulsory purchase order on land that she owned. The Council has already acknowledged it was at fault for not paying Mrs X for the land in March 2016 and has agreed to pay interest from the purchase date. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused.

  • Cheshire East Council (20 010 987)

    Statement Not upheld Land 24-May-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains he incurred legal costs because of delay by the Council relating to an overage issue. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because it is unlikely we can add to previous responses by the Council or reach a different outcome.

  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 007)

    Statement Upheld Land 07-May-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision not to list local playing fields as an Asset of Community Value. The Ombudsman finds there was fault in the Council's actions when it failed to send a letter to Mr X following a review. The Council has already remedied the injustice arising from this fault.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 866)

    Statement Upheld Land 22-Dec-2020

    Summary: Ms C complained the Council delayed in removing a restrictive covenant on a building her organisation was selling. We find the Council was not at fault. The Council did delay in sending Ms C a stage one complaint response. That was fault. It has apologised, that is a sufficient remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Trafford Council (19 019 125)

    Statement Upheld Land 22-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council's handling of a request for information required for a property sale and her complaint about this. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed to remedy this by paying Mrs Y £429.80 to reflect the additional costs, distress, time and trouble its faults caused her.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 012 946)

    Statement Not upheld Land 19-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr K complains the Council failed to consider all relevant matters and ignored residents concerns when it decided to appropriate land. He also complains it did not properly deal with his complaint. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

  • Epping Forest District Council (19 017 253)

    Statement Upheld Land 16-Nov-2020

    Summary: There was fault in how the Council decided to dispose of land near Mr X's home. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X as this fault falsely raised his expectations of securing the land. But the fault is not likely to have affected the Council's decision or, therefore, the position in which Mr X now finds himself.

  • City of York Council (19 016 125)

    Statement Not upheld Land 30-Jun-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly claims to have adopted a private road, including an area of his private property. He wants the Council to remove the road from its list of streets and for the Ombudsman to require the Council to adhere to highway legislation. The Ombudsman has discontinued this investigation because the Ombudsman cannot decide, on balance, whether the Council has legally adopted the road or whether there are highway rights over the road.