Summary: Mr D complains he incurred legal costs because of delay by the Council relating to an overage issue. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because it is unlikely we can add to previous responses by the Council or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant’s representative (whom I refer to as Ms A and the complainant as Mr D) says the Council delayed handling a disagreement between both parties relating to an Overage Agreement. Mr D says he should not have had to use the dispute resolution process and he incurred legal costs.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information supplied by Ms A.
4. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr D bought a property from the Council in 2015. There was a subsequent dispute about an overage provision in an Overage Agreement.
6. A clause in the Overage Agreement allowed either party, after 14 working days, to seek dispute resolution via an Independent Surveyor. At the end of 2019 Mr D instructed an Independent Surveyor who subsequently consider the case in 2020.
7. Mr D complains about delay by the Council and that he had to use the dispute resolution process. It is evident the dispute resolution mechanism was open for Mr D to use from an early stage in the process and he could have exercised that facility sooner. As such there is no merit in the Ombudsman pursuing this case. Additional investigation would not alter that Mr D had the right to use the resolution mechanism sooner or that it was correct he used that process. As set out above the Ombudsman will not continue investigating where it is unlikely we would add to our understanding of the case or reach a different conclusion.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I have discontinued the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman