Summary: Mrs X has complained about how the Council has dealt with her request to purchase land protected as part of a proposed highway scheme. There is evidence of fault by the Council. It has agreed to a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X has complained about how the Council has dealt with her request to purchase land which forms part of the driveway to her home. She says the Council has taken too long to deal with the matter and provided incorrect and misleading information. Mrs X says the Council’s actions have caused her considerable stress and she has suffered financial loss.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information from Mrs X and the Council including its response to my enquires.
5. A copy of this decision was sent in draft to Mrs X and the Council. I have considered the comments received in response.

Back to top

Background

6. In the 1980s the previous owners of Mrs X’s home sold a section of their driveway to the Council. The land was included as part of a proposed scheme to build a bypass. In 2002, Mrs X bought the house and entered into a tenancy at will agreement with the Council. The Council has never built the bypass and a housing development has since been completed on the land opposite Mrs X’s home which was also included as part of the scheme.
7. In September 2017, Mrs X contacted the Council to ask about buying the land. Mrs X received a response from the Council’s estates and valuations department. It said it would contact the Council’s highways team to confirm if the land had been declared surplus to requirements so it could be sold. In November 2017, the Council contacted Mrs X again to say it was still waiting for a response from its highways team.
8. In January 2018, Mrs X decided to move out of her home and sold the property subject to contract. However, the sale was not completed as the buyer’s solicitor advised against the purchase until the matter regarding the land owned by the Council was resolved. Mrs X contacted the Council in May 2018 to ask again about buying the land. She had not had any contact with the Council since November 2017 and explained that she needed to resolve the issue as soon as possible so the sale of her home could continue.
9. Mrs X was in contact with the Council about the land throughout May 2018 and was contacted by a member of its highways team in June. Mrs X says that she was told during this call that she could buy the land as the Council had declared it surplus to requirements. Mrs X says the Council told her someone from its estates team would contact her to arrange the sale.
10. As Mrs X did not receive any further contact from the Council about the sale, she contacted its estates team towards the end of June 2018. After some negotiation, Mrs X and the Council agreed a price for the land. However, Mrs X was told the matter would need to go back to the highways team before the sale could proceed. In August 2018, the Council told Mrs X it could not sell her the land as it had not yet formally abandoned the bypass scheme.
11. Mrs X says the Council should have told her in September 2017, when she first contacted it, that she could not buy the land as the bypass scheme had not been formally abandoned. She says if the Council had told her this, she could have rented the property when she moved out in January 2018. Instead the house remained empty and incurred significant costs.
12. The Council has accepted there were issues with how it dealt with the matter. It says requests to buy land protected by a highway scheme are unusual and therefore it does not have a documented procedure in place for dealing with these matters. It says this led to confusion about the steps needed to allow Mrs X to buy the land and the timescales involved.

What I found

13. I have reviewed the correspondence between Mrs X and the Council, and it seems clear there have been delays. Mrs X first contacted the Council to ask about buying the land in September 2017, and other than an initial acknowledgment and a brief update in November 2017, she did not have any further response until she contacted it again in May 2018.
14. I understand Mrs X’s request to buy the land may have been unusual and that information was needed from different departments within the Council to consider the request. However, the Council should have kept Mrs X up to date with its progress. I also cannot see that anything happened after November 2017 until May 2018 when Mrs X contacted it again to follow up her request. Mrs X says the Council told her in June 2018 that she could purchase the land. I cannot know for certain what was discussed during this call. However, having reviewed the email correspondence sent before and after this discussion, I consider it more likely than not the Council wrongly told Mrs X that she could buy the land. The Council also told Mrs X in November 2018 that it would progress the matter for a delegated cabinet member decision because of the delays and difficulties she has encountered. However, this does not seem to have happened.
15. I consider these delays and the incorrect information given to Mrs X fault. However, I have needed to consider if this fault caused Mrs X any injustice and what, if any, remedy may be suitable. There must be a clear link between the fault and injustice caused, and any remedy we recommend should be proportionate, appropriate and reasonable. I understand Mrs X says she would have rented her property out in January 2018 if the Council had told her sooner that she could not buy the land. Instead she says she incurred significant costs while the property was empty. While, I cannot know what would have happened had there not been delays with the Council telling Mrs X that she could not purchase the land, I agree she has been put to time and trouble because of how the Council dealt with her request. She had to chase it on many occasions for responses and was left uncertain for some time about whether she could purchase the land.

Agreed action

16. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £350 for her time and trouble and for the uncertainty caused by how it dealt with her request to buy land protected as part of a proposed highway scheme. It should make this payment within one month of this decision.
17. The Council says it intends to refer the matter to a cabinet member for a delegated decision to alter the route of the bypass shortly. However, it says the matter is not a high priority. The Council should start the process for a delegated decision to change the route of the bypass in the near future. If Mrs X encounters further delays in this regard she can return to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

18. There is fault with how the Council has dealt with a request to purchase land protected as part of a proposed highway scheme.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman