Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to sell land to Mr X. This is because the complaint is late and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council withdrew from selling him a plot of land next to his property. He says the Council’s decision caused him significant financial loss. Mr X also believes local Councillors colluded to influence the Council’s decision to withdraw from the sale. He wants the Council to pay back his losses and either continue with the sale of the land or sell him another plot.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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)

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 applied to buy a plot of land behind his home in November 2018. In June 2019, he paid the advertising fees required for a Public Open Space (POS) consultation. The Council received no objections and began progressing the sale. However, planning enforcement issues repeatedly delayed the process.
8. In April 2021, the Council issued Heads of Terms and agreed a price for the land. The Council told Mr X to instruct a solicitor, and he did so. The Council then consulted neighbouring properties, although it later accepted it should have completed this step earlier. Following this late consultation, two neighbours expressed an interest in the land.
9. As a result, the Council decided to revalue the land, divide it into three plots, and re-advertise it for sale. The Council began a second POS consultation in May 2022.
10. During the second consultation, Mr X says local councillors visited residents and encouraged them to put in objections. The Council received 19 objections. After considering these objections, the Council decided not to sell the land.
11. On 13 September 2022, the Council formally withdrew its offer to Mr X, who then complained that Councillors colluded to prevent his purchase of the land. The Council said Councillors were entitled to make representations on behalf of residents and it found no evidence of collusion, discrimination, or illegality. It also explained it had discretion under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to withdraw the sale in light of objections.
12. The Council accepted that Mr X incurred costs during the process. It agreed that some costs arose because it did not follow its internal processes correctly and because planning enforcement delays prolonged the sale.
13. The Council agreed to make a goodwill payment to reduce Mr X’s abortive costs. The Council initially delayed making the payment, it has since apologised and paid it.
14. We do not normally investigate complaints about events more than 12 months old. Mr X did not complain to us until September 2025 – 3 years after the Council withdrew from sale.
15. We will not investigate this complaint as it is late. Even if we did investigate, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating, because we cannot compel the Council to sell land where it has no statutory duty to do so and only the courts can decide liability for Mr X’s alleged losses.
16. Deciding on whether an organisation has acted unlawfully involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way, at evidence as only the court can to make a finding. Only this route can decide if the Council’s action in this case were illegal as Mr X alleges and that damages are payable to him as a result. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation. The courts are for people where this is a primary goal.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint as it is late and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman