Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has not maintained a piece of land. That is because this dispute about responsibility and ownership is best considered by the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not take responsibility for the repair and maintenance of a piece of land outside his property. He said the disrepair was a hazard. He said it could cause a flooding risk to his property. He wants the Council to compensate him and make the area safe.

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)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X owns an ex-council house. He said the previous owner installed paving to the front of the property that had now become hazardous. He contacted the Council asking it to repair the paved area.
8. In the Council’s final complaint response to Mr X, it said it was not responsible for the area of land and that it fell into the boundary of Mr X’s property.
9. It separately considered whether there was a breach of any planning by the previous owner. It contacted Mr X and said the installation of the paving was not a breach of planning permission.
10. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate. If there is any dispute about the ownership of the land, this is a matter for the courts. If Mr X agrees the land is his but is of the view the Council remains responsible for completing the repairs, this is also for the court. Only the court can decide if the Council is liable for the work completed by the previous owner and if so, award any necessary damages.
11. The Council has accepted there was a lack of clarity between departments in responding to Mr X ‘s concerns. There were also delays in the Council responding to Mr X at stage two. The Council confirmed it had increased staffing capacity and revised its internal processes to improve communication. It also offered £100 for the delays experienced. That remedies any injustice caused. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matter is best dealt with by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman