Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a development of land. This is because the complaint is late with no good reasons for us to investigate it now and there are other bodies better placed to consider the issues raised.

The complaint

1. Ms Y is an owner of flat. She complains the Council:
• Failed to properly consult the public about the development of the road outside the flat;
• Took over land belonging to her, previously used for parking, and installed bike racks and a raised kerb to prevent parking in the area. She says this has decreased the value of the flats significantly and caused inconvenience; and
• Failed to give a proper response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided about this complaint. Ms Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council consulted on a road redevelopment between December 2015 and the end of January 2016. Ms Y says the Council did not send all owners consultation documents so it was unable to properly consider the views of those affected by the changes.
6. Following the public consultation, the Council redeveloped the road and the pavement area. Ms Y says this was done without the agreement of the various lease and freeholders of the land, of which she is one. She says this has led to the land being lost, reducing the parking amenity for the properties, and reducing the value of the properties.
7. Ms Y contacted the Council, making a FOI request for information about the impact of the redevelopment in 2017. However, Ms Y was not satisfied with the response the Council gave in 2017. She says this delayed her in making her complaint.
8. Ms Y then attended a public meeting in June 2018, during which owners of the flats raised objections to the development. The Council said the land is not privately owned and forms part of the adopted highway.
9. Ms Y complained to the Council in January 2020. She then approached the Ombudsman in November 2020.

Analysis

10. While Ms Y began making enquiries about the redevelopment and the affect on parking at the flats in 2017. Consequently, Ms Y has been aware of her reason to complain for more than 12 months and her complaint is late. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
11. Ms Y says she was delayed in making her complaint to the Council until January 2020 as she had not received a satisfactory response to her FOI request from the Council. However, this would not prevent her from complaining about the issue itself, or from contacting the Ombudsman to raise her concerns previously. Even though she may have received further information because of the FOI request, Ms Y was aware of the alleged cause of her injustice, in the loss of parking, when the work was carried out in 2017. She was therefore aware of her reason to complain more than 12 months ago regardless of having a response to the FOI or not. Consequently, Ms Y’s complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.
12. Further, the complaint is fundamentally a dispute over the ownership and use of the land. This is a matter which Ms Y has a right to take to court if she wants to challenge the use of the land, she says she owns. The Ombudsman does not have the power to decide on this type of dispute as it is a matter for the courts. Consequently, the court is better placed to consider this issue and we will not investigate.
13. The Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) role includes investigating complaints about responses to FOI requests. Consequently, it is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider Ms Y’s complaint about the response she received to her FOI request from the Council, so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late with no good reasons for us to investigate it now and there are other bodies better placed to consider the issues raised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman