Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about its support when she raised concerns about the sale of land to a third party. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate the earlier period now. In relation to the period we have considered, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s treatment of her and other neighbours when land where she lives was sold to a third party. In particular, she said the Council did not carry out proper due diligence during the selling process and the new owners have demonstrated they are not able to operate the site effectively. She also said the Council had not carried out appropriate site visits, which led to delays in addressing breaches of site licence conditions. She said she had been raising concerns with the Council for three years, but it had not supported her.

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 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)
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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 Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X lives in a property on land previously owned by the Council, which it sold to a third party a few years ago. Ms X raised a number of concerns with the Council, including that:
• it had not carried out appropriate due diligence checks when deciding to sell to the third party;
• the site had been unlicensed for a period after the sale; and
• it had not assisted when she raised concerns about the behaviour of the third party, including demanding cash from residents, putting undue pressure on residents to sign documents and anti-social behaviour.
8. In its complaint response, the Council:
• said it had carried out all reasonable and necessary checks on all bidders before agreeing the sale;
• accepted there was a period where the site did not have a licence. It said this was due to the need to obtain planning permission before a licence could be put in place; and
• Ms X should refer her concerns about the conduct of the third party to the police.
9. In response to our enquiries, the Council:
• provided documents to show that planning permission was confirmed in September 2024, and a licence was issued in late October 2024;
• it considered Ms X’s reports about the third party but decided a referral to the police was more appropriate than exercising its general powers to address anti-social behaviour in these particular circumstances. It provide an email to Ms X, which referred to it had had a long discussion with the police about her concerns in February 2025 and the action the police were likely to take. The Council said it did not receive any further reports about the third party;
• confirmed it had considered whether the third party was in breach of the conditions of the site licence, but decided they were broadly adhering to them, so formal action was not needed. It identified the third party was not displaying the site licence and gave the third party advice about this;
• said that, since its final complaint response, it had sent Ms X the site licence and confirmed its position in relation to the third party being a fit and proper person to hold the licence.

My assessment

10. We do not usually investigate complaints about events more than 12 months before the complaint to us. Ms X complained to us in July 2025 about events going back more than three years. There is no evidence that Ms X could not have complained to us earlier and no good reason to investigate the period before July 2024 now. This means we will not consider Ms X’s concerns about the due diligence prior to the sale of land. Even if we did investigate the earlier period, it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome because the sale was completed some time ago and the Council is satisfied the third party is a fit and proper person to hold the site licence.
11. Whilst there may have been a delay in confirming the planning permission for the site, which delayed the Council considering the site licence, this did not cause Ms X sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
12. The Council considered whether the third party was in breach of the site licence after it was issued, but decided formal action was not needed. It explained to us its reasons for deciding this, which show it considered relevant factors, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it considered this to justify further investigation.
13. The Council is not responsible for the actions or inaction of the third party it sold the land to. It considered Ms X’s concerns and whether it should take action using its general powers to address anti-social behaviour. It decided it was more appropriate for Ms X to raise her concerns with the police and advised her accordingly. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault leading to sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman