Summary: Miss C complains about the Council entering into an exclusive agreement to sell her some land, but that it then delayed progressing this, leading to a rival offer. The Ombudsman’s decision is we will not determine the status of the agreement Miss C had with the Council. That needs determination by a court. But we have upheld the complaint and found the Council raised Miss C’s expectations, which led to some uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendation of a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss C, complains:
• she had a written agreement with the Council to buy some land, but it did not honour this;
• the time period in which to purchase the land lapsed due to the Council’s inefficiency and lack of resources;
• the Council acted unprofessionally and failed to communicate promptly;
• when she complained, the Council contacted Miss C by email, despite her expressly asking for contact in writing.
2. Miss C says, but for the delay by the Council, she would have purchased the land before their neighbour put in his counter-offer. So:
• she should not be financially penalised for the inefficiency and unprofessionalism of the Council;
• as she incurred legal fees, she would like these refunded;
• she would like interest on the legal fees and the £1200 the Council took under false pretences.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss C;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Miss C;
• sent my draft decision to Miss C and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council owns some land that is next to Miss C’s home. Miss C first applied to the Council in 2020 to buy the land. It was unclear which Council team was responsible for the sale. It was not until the spring of 2021 that an officer in the Council’s assets team (whom I shall refer to as Officer 1) advised he would help Miss C with the application. The Council advised Miss C it needed a payment of £1200 from her, so it could value the land.
8. Miss C emailed the Council wanting an assurance that, if she paid the fee, she would have the opportunity to purchase the plot, rather than the Council selling it to someone else. Officer 1 responded to advise that, once Miss C “…receive(d) the valuation the offer is opened exclusively to you for 3 months”.
9. In September 2021, after the valuation and payment of fees, Officer 1 emailed Miss C offering her the opportunity to buy the land. The offer advised her she would need to agree to pay the Council’s legal fees. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it made this offer “…on a Without Prejudice & Subject to Contract basis…”.
10. Miss C says Officer 1 delayed supplying her details of the Council’s solicitors. In October 2021, Miss C instructed solicitors and provided the Council with their details.
11. Miss C says the Council told her it needed to delay the sale of the land due to staffing issues. The Council acknowledges that, despite Officer 1 chasing the issue with the Council’s legal team, it did not send out the draft sales documents to Miss C.
12. At the end of March 2022, the Council received another offer for the land from Miss C’s neighbour. In June, Officer 1 contacted Miss C to advise her the Council had received the higher offer. And, as more than three months had passed since the valuation, it was no longer valid. So the Council would be selling the land to the highest bidder.
13. The Council offered Miss C the chance to make a higher bid. It also agreed that, should her best bid be unsuccessful, it would refund her the valuation fee.
14. In July Miss C put in a new offer. Her bid was successful. So the Council instructed its external solicitor to proceed with the sale.
15. However, Miss C questioned an apparent change in the size of the land. She then submitted a revised offer, due to the reduced estimate of the size of the land the Council was selling.
16. Officer 1 advised Miss C the Council would not proceed with the sale at the reduced amount. So Miss C withdrew from buying the land.
17. Miss C complained. The Council’s complaint responses:
• accepted delays in the initial process. It advised Officer 1 would have training in time management skills;
• advised the neighbour’s offer to buy the land was unsolicited. But the Council had a duty to achieve best value;
• said, as with any property transaction, both sides carried some financial risk;
• said the site had not been measured. So the area measurements were estimates. It was the buyer’s responsibility to investigate;
• agreed to refund the valuation payment;
• apologised for the delay.
18. Miss C remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response, so she complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• “…the [Council] advised [Miss C] the valuation was valid for 3 months and that Ms [C] would have exclusivity on the sale, this exclusivity does not guarantee that a sale will be completed only that [the Council] would not talk with or sell to any third party.”
• to settle the complaint, it proposed to allow Miss C to buy the land at the amount she had offered in July 2022.

Analysis

19. Miss C’s view is she had a legitimate expectation she would be able to buy the plot of land from the Council after the valuation. The Council has advised its position is that the three-month offer was not a guarantee of sale; rather all it committed to was that it would not discuss other offers during that period. Miss C points out it was impossible for her to buy the land during that period, due to the Council’s delay.
20. So a key issue in Miss C’s complaint concerns the status of the Council’s agreement. But the Ombudsman is not a substitute for the courts. And adjudication on the enforceability of the agreement between Miss C and the Council would involve deciding on contested questions of fact and law. These need the more rigorous and structured procedures of civil litigation for their proper determination. So I will not make any finding on the status of that guarantee.
21. But that still leaves a delay by the Council, which was fault. The Council has already apologised for this, advised of some learning and refunded the valuation fees.
22. The Council’s agreement raised Miss C’s expectations. The delay caused some uncertainty about whether the outcome might have been different, but for the delay. That injustice warrants its own symbolic remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. We can recommend a remedy when we find fault has caused unremedied injustice. We call this a personal remedy. When there is no other way to remedy injustice, this may take the form of a payment. This is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation, and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal.
24. So for the avoidable raised expectations and uncertainty caused by the faults I have found, the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment of £200 to Miss C.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within a month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I uphold this complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman