Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council handled her Landowner Statement relating to a piece of land and a later Town and Village Green application. There was fault by the Council. It did not follow the correct process which caused Mrs B uncertainty. It did not deal with her complaint to it in good time. The Council should apologise to Mrs B and write to her to confirm her Landowner Statement is valid.

The complaint

1. The Council failed to follow the legal process for registering Mrs B’s Landowner Statement and did not confirm that it was valid.
2. Ms B says that this meant that a Town and Village Green (TVG) applicant claimed that her Landowner Statement was invalid, and she had to pursue this with the Council. Ms B says this caused her distress and she suffered threats of vandalism when supporters of the application realised that she was opposing it. Ms B also had to pay £200 to register a new Landowner Statement when this was not necessary.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

7. A person can apply for a space to be registered as a green if it has been used by local people for lawful sports and pastimes ‘as of right’ (ie without permission, force, or secrecy) for at least 20 years. If the application is complex, DEFRA may decide to hold a public enquiry where an inspector will decide whether to grant the TVG registration.
8. The law says a landowner statement can prevent land being registered as a village green. The Council is responsible for recording information about Landowner Statements in public registers. Government Guidance sets out that the council must check the map included with the Landowner Statement, publicise it, and enter it onto the register. Interested parties then have one year to apply for a green to be registered on the land covered by the Landowner Statement.
9. The Council charges a fee for registering the Landowner Statement. It charges a lower fee for subsequent declarations to an existing Landowner Statement.

What happened

10. Mrs B owns a plot of land that had been sub-divided from a much larger piece of land into many plots. When Mrs B bought the land. She was told that the previous owner of the larger piece of land had lodged a Landowner Statement with the Council in 2020. The Council had not publicised nor registered the statement. The Council said it had no record of the statement, nor that a fee had been paid for it.
11. In 2021, having bought a plot of the land, Mrs B had lodged her own Landowner Statement covering just her plot. Again, the Council had not publicised nor registered the statement.
12. Just over a year later, a local body applied to register land as a village green. Discussions prior to it lodging the application included part of Mrs B’s plot in the application. The applicant’s barrister had said that as her Landowner Statement had not been properly registered by the Council, it was not valid and so would be included in the TVG application.
13. Mrs B then obtained planning permission for agricultural use of her plot. This meant the applicant removed Mrs B’s plot from the TVG application. The application included other plots that had been part of the larger piece of land. The application was heard at a public enquiry, which Mrs B attended.
14. The barrister advised Ms B to get a letter from the Council confirming that it had registered her Landowner Statement. Ms B asked the Council for this in March 2024, and asked it to accept liability for any future claim that the Landowner Statement was not valid due to it not following the correct process.
15. Ms B made a formal complaint on 4 November and asked the Council for its final response on 15 December. The Council said it would await the report from the public enquiry. Ms B pointed out that by this stage her land was not part of the TVG application and so the Council could respond to her complaint without referring to the public enquiry.
16. The enquiry’s Inspector issued its report on 8 January 2025. The Inspector said they accepted, based on the evidence they had heard, that the original landowner had deposited a Landowner Statement for the larger piece of land. The Inspector decided that the Landowner Statement was valid when it was deposited with the Council. If the Council then failed to publicise the statement or enter it onto the register, it would not make the Landowner Statement invalid.
17. On 10 January, Mrs B asked the Council to confirm that it had made a mistake, her Landowner Statement was valid and ended the ‘as of right’ use when she lodged it with the Council. Mrs B again asked the Council to accept liability for any future claim relating to the flawed process, and to reimburse £200 of the registration fee as she believed it should have charged her the lower amount to modify the original Landowner Statement for the larger piece of land.
18. The Council responded to Mrs B on 17 April 2025. The Council acknowledged that Mrs B’s land was not now part of the TVG application. But it said that it was still to consider the TVG application at its committee meeting, and some of the issues Mrs B raised were part of that consideration. It said it could not fetter its consideration of the application. However:
• The Council acknowledged that it did not publicise her Landowner Statement. It is reviewing its processes in light of the Inspector’s report.
• It did not say whether the original Landowner Statement was valid and its committee would consider this as part of the TVG application.
• The Council will assess any future claims made against it as these arise.
• It will consider further her request for a refund.
19. On 14 May 2025, the Council confirmed:
• The Council accepted that the public enquiry had found that the original Landowner Statement had been properly deposited with it in relation to the larger area of land. The Council reiterated that it does not have a record of the statement, but it will place the details of this on the register with an explanatory note as to why it had not done this sooner.
• This means the ‘as of right use’ ended when the Landowner Statement was deposited in October 2020.
• The TVG application was made in April 2022 and so it failed because it should have been made within one year of the Landowner Statement being deposited (so by October 2021).
• The Council was right to charge the fee because Mrs B’s Landowner Statement was related to a different area of land to the original 2020 Landowner Statement. Mrs B’s Landowner Statement required processing by the Council and so the full fee was payable. This is different to subsequent declarations to an existing Landowner Statement where a lower fee is applied.
20. Later and in response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed that Ms B’s Landowner Statement was valid.

Findings

21. The Council has acknowledged that it was fault when it failed to follow the proper process to publicise and register Mrs B’s Landowner Statement in 2021. This meant that Mrs B had to pursue matters with the Council and she was initially worried that her land would be taken into the TVG registration.
22. However, the fault by the Council did not mean that Mrs B had to have any involvement with the TVG application or the public enquiry, because Mrs B’s plot had been removed from the application when she got planning permission for agricultural use.
23. The Council has explained why it charged Mrs B the full fee and this is a reasonable interpretation of the rules. Mrs B’s Landowner Statement was not a subsequent declaration of the existing Statement.
24. The Council did not handle Mrs B’s complaint to it in good time. I am not convinced that it could not deal with her complaint separately to the TVG application. In any case, it did not keep in touch with her sufficiently which meant Mrs B had to chase the Council for its response. It caused her frustration and uncertainty.
25. Mrs B has asked the Council to indemnify her against any future claim that the Landowner Statement she submitted, is not valid. I appreciate that another TVG application could be submitted and it could be that her land is included on the basis that the applicant considers her Landowner Statement is not valid. However, the Council has now confirmed that her statement is valid. If there is another application, it is open to Mrs B to use the normal process to object to the application and make submissions to any public enquiry or other decision-maker.

Back to top

Action

26. The Council should within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mrs B for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Confirm in writing that Mrs B’s statement is valid. As with the Council’s apology, this letter should come from someone sufficiently senior and accountable.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman