Summary: Mr D complains the Council did not give his parents the opportunity to purchase a property adjacent to theirs. The Ombudsman will not investigate further. This is because the complaint is late and the Ombudsman is unable to achieve the outcome Mr D wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will refer to as Mr D, complained that his parents were not given the opportunity to purchase a property that was adjacent to theirs, and which the Council owned. Mr D says that he and his parents had previously expressed an interest in purchasing the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint from Mr D; and
• reviewed and considered the Council’s complaint responses; and
• spoke with Mr D about his complaint.
5. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties, and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr D’s parents live in a property adjacent to another property which was owned by the Council.

What happened

7. In 2015, the Council met to consider the future of the property and decided it should be sold, however after further discussion the sale was postponed.
8. In 2017, the Council met again, and agreed that the sale of the property could go ahead. The Council say that it considered all methods of sale and decided to offer the property to any party that had registered a formal expression of interest in purchasing it.
9. The property was subsequently sold to the owners of another neighbouring property who, the Council say, had previously submitted a formal expression of interest in the property.
10. Mr D complained to the Council that his parents were not given the opportunity to purchase the property, despite both he and his parents expressing their interest in doing so on more than one occasion.
11. He said that his parents had sent a formal expression of interest in purchasing the property approximately 15-20 years ago. The Council said that it did not hold documents going back this far.
12. Mr D said he had called the Town Clerk in 2017 and told them he was interested. The Council say that during this conversation, Mr D was told to submit a formal expression of interest. Mr D however disputes this, and says he was told that the Town Clerk would tell the relevant Council department about his interest.
13. Mr D also says he expressed his interest when objecting to a planning application in August 2017. The Council said it did not consider his comments to be an expression of interest in the property.
14. Mr D says that if his parents had purchased the property it would have increased the value of their home. He says that the sale should be reversed, or his parents should be compensated for the loss of the potential of an increase to the value of their property.

Analysis

15. Mr D is unhappy with the Councils decision to sell a property, without giving his parents the opportunity to purchase it. However, the Council say that they did not received any formal expression of interest from either Mr D or his parents.
16. Having considered Mr D’s complaint carefully I have concluded that the Ombudsman’s investigation should be discontinued. This is because instances where Mr D says he or his parent submitted an expression of interest in the property, or instances where there was the opportunity to do so, occurred more than 12 months ago.
17. Because of the considerable amount of time that has passed since these events, it is unlikely that any investigation conducted by us would be able to reach a sound, fair or meaningful decision.
18. Furthermore, we would not be able to achieve the outcome that Mr D wants. It would not be in our powers to recommend that the sale is reversed, and any claims for loss of value to the property would be better pursued through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman