Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to sell him and his neighbours a plot of land it owns, and how it dealt with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault, nor sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of, to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property bordering a strip of land owned by the Council. He has several other neighbours with similar boundaries with the same land. Mr X and his neighbours asked the Council to sell the land to them. He complains the Council:
1. unfairly refused to sell the land to him and his neighbours;
2. did not provide evidence for their decision, including of the land’s ongoing use as communal open space and evidence from its site visit;
3. failed to offer alternative agreements so he could use the land;
4. delayed in dealing with his complaint.
2. Mr X says:

• he has experienced months of frustration trying to engage with the Council, dealing with an obstructive, inconsistent, and dismissive process;
• the land remains untidy and poorly maintained and he is being prevented from improving it at his own cost;
• the complaints process has caused him stress and wasted his time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process officers followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Mr X’s request, the Council reviewed its records on the land, including the original plans for the area and the wider estate. An officer visited the site to inform the Council’s decision. The Council decided they would not wish to sell the land or alter access to it for the wider public. Officers determined the land is in a prominent location and formed part of the design of the estate, providing a clearly defined boundary between public and domestic land. They decided selling the land for use as an addition to Mr X’s and his neighbours’ gardens would harm the appearance of the street. Officers expressed concern that selling this land could set a precedent for other private garden extensions in the area, which they considered would have additional negative impacts on the street scene.
8. We note Mr X wanted to see more documentation of the Council’s assessment and visit. But officers provided him with the Council’s decision and explained it to him. Officers gathered relevant information from the estate plans and the site to make their decision not to sell the land, which was a decision officers were entitled to make. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making processes here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. We understand Mr X is disappointed and frustrated by the Council’s decision because he has not got the outcome he wants. But that process and the resulting decision did not involve Council fault. Any impacts on him, or his neighbours, caused by that decision and process do not stem from fault by the Council. We note Mr X says he is affected by the land being poorly maintained while it remains in Council ownership. But that the land is not as tidy as he would like, or as tidy as he might make it if he owned it, is not a sufficiently significant personal injustice to him to justify us investigating.
10. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint, including delays in the process. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to him caused by the matters complained of to justify an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman