Land


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Manchester City Council (19 011 529)

    Statement Upheld Land 29-Jun-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of himself and three other residents. They complained about work carried out on their land to extend the rear boundary of their gardens during 2019 and about delays in legally conveying land from an old alleyway to them. The Council's contractor carried out the works in line with the proposed plans. The Council was at fault for not confirming its ownership of the land before agreeing the scheme, which has led to delays in conveying the land to the residents. The Council agreed to write to the residents and apologise for the uncertainty caused by the delay and explain to them how it is going to resolve the matter. It also agreed to provide the Ombudsman with an action plan with timescales of how it intends to legally convey the land to the residents.

  • 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.

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.