Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to regularise the status and ownership of land in his area. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making and any injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider complaints about the handling of information requests.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to regularise the ownership of a piece of open land in his area. He says historic planning documents meant the land should have become public space, but the Council never formally adopted it and refused to take it over. Mr X says as the Council has maintained the land for many years, residents reasonably expected it to remain protected public space. He says the Council’s failure to act has left the land at risk of being sold to a private buyer, causing him distress and uncertainty about his future ability to use and enjoy the land.
2. Mr X also complains about how the Council handled his information request relating to the land’s planning history, ownership and maintenance records.
3. Mr X wants the Council to review its decision, clarify its responsibilities and acknowledge the avoidable time, trouble and uncertainty caused by its failure to act.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. 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)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about access to information. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The evidence available shows the land remains in private ownership. The Council reviewed the planning history and relevant records. It found there was no binding planning condition, legal agreement or other enforceable obligation requiring it to acquire or adopt the land. There was also no requirement that said the land should be maintained as a public open space. The Council explained the designation shown on historic planning drawings did not create a duty for it to take ownership of the land.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not question a council's decision simply because someone disagrees with it. We consider whether there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision. The evidence available shows the Council considered the relevant issues, reached a view and gave reasons for that view. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making to justify an investigation.
11. Even if there were evidence of fault, there is no significant personal injustice to Mr X. The land remains accessible and there is no evidence he has lost the ability to use or enjoy it. His concerns mainly relate to the possibility that ownership or use of the land may change in the future. Any future development proposals would be subject to the planning process, where any relevant planning designations would be material considerations.
12. Mr X also complained about the Council's handling of his information requests. If Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council's response to his information requests, he may complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The ICO is the specialist body responsible for considering complaints about access to information and related matters.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making and any injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider complaints about the handling of information requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman