Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues related to the Council’s attempts to acquire land from the complaint. This is primarily because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and to continue to raise his freedom of information concerns with the Information Commissioner. We also could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant in relation to the Council’s handling of the negotiation process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about various issues related to the Council’s attempts to negotiate the acquisition of some land he owns. In particular, he raises concerns about:
• The Council failing to adequately respond to his information requests.
• Council decisions being made which benefit the interests of councillors and council officers
• Changes to the designation of the land in the Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP).
• The Council’s handling of the acquisition negotiations since late-2023.

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. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. And 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)
5. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
7. Finally, we do not reconsider issues already addressed in response to a previous complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council.
• the Ombudsman’s decision on a previous complaint by Mr X.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above, appears to apply to much of Mr X’s complaints. This is because many of the events or matters which he complains about arose several years ago. For example, the current LDP was adopted in 2016. If Mr X was unhappy about the designation of the land within that document, I would have expected him to have contacted us about this sooner. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate any issues which Mr X was aware of prior to late-2023.
10. And with reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, if Mr X is unhappy with the Council ‘s responses to his recent requests for information, it would be reasonable for him to again take his complaint to the ICO, who is better placed to consider such issues. They can determine whether the Council has properly responded to Mr X’s requests and whether its reasons for not releasing additional information are valid. It can also compel the Council to release information the Council has previously withheld. The Ombudsman will therefore not consider any parts of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s responses to his requests for information.
11. If Mr X believes councillors or officers have acted unlawfully for their own personal benefit, then we would normally expect him to raise such matters with the Police.
12. And, if Mr X believes councillors have breached the code of conduct within the last year, then it is open to him to submit a new code of conduct complaint to the Council. If he is unhappy with the outcome, he may then complain to the Ombudsman. However, we will not reconsider any issues which were addressed during Mr X’s previous code of conduct complaint to the Ombudsman.
13. Finally, the Council has confirmed it has not initiated the Compulsory Purchase Order process yet; rather it has been seeking to negotiate an agreed acquisition of the land with Mr X since late-2023. The Ombudsman cannot act as an appeal body in those negotiations or decide how much the land is worth. As such, and having regard to the other restrictions on what we can investigate (as detailed above), an investigation into the Council’s handling of those discussions is unlikely to lead to a substantively different or worthwhile outcome for Mr X. So, we will not investigate this part of the complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint primarily because:
• it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner about some of the issues raised.
• it is reasonable to expect him to raise any freedom of information concerns with the ICO.
• we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome in relation to the Council’s handling of the negotiation process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman