Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about garages included in the registered title of the property he purchased recently. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr B to go to court to seek a remedy if the issue is not resolved.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that when the Council sold the property he currently owns to a previous occupier, it included two garages in a sale. But the Council continued to rent the garages to local residents and has refused to date to reallocate other garages to them. Mr B says he has incurred financial loss and legal fees and the situation has affected him and his partner’s health and emotional wellbeing and his partner’s work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B and the Council have provided. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B says the Council is not acting morally or with integrity to resolve the problem. It has not reallocated different garages in the area to those who are currently renting them so he can use them. Mr B says the Council is looking to gain assets and further rental income by threatening to make an adverse possession claim. He says the Council has deceived their neighbours by telling them they are renting the garages legally. He says this happened after he asked his neighbours to leave the garages because he owned them and they were paying rent to the wrong landlord.
6. The Council says it sold the property Mr B currently occupies more than 30 years ago. The plan used register the purchase included two council owned garages in error because the purchasers had no right to buy them. The Council says the purchasers did not use the garages. It says it continued to rent them to adjoining owners on an uninterrupted basis. The Council says Mr B privately rented the property before he bought it and it continued to rent out the garages during this period.
7. Mr B has not said what enquiries he and his legal advisor made about the status of the garages when he recently purchased his home. It was reasonable to expect him to seek clarification of the situation with the garages before agreeing a purchase price because the garages were included in the registered title of the property.
8. The Council says its legal team is taking instructions from its Housing Service on how to proceed. It has been in in correspondence with Mr B’s legal representative.
9. Mr B wants the Council to take action so he can use the garages. So far it has not done so. It is possible the Council may be able to resolve the matter in the longer term. But if it does not do so, it is reasonable to expect Mr B to go to court. This is because a legal remedy is called for in this case. The Ombudsman cannot rule on legal matters such as an adverse possession claim.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr B to go to court to seek a remedy if the issue is not resolved.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman