Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council accessing his land without authorisation. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome. Also, any injustice Mr X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council visited and inspected structures on land he owns without verifying ownership, contacting him in advance, or explaining its statutory or legal basis for entry. He says the Council relied on a neighbour’s representation about ownership rather than conducting a Land Registry check. He says following his complaint the Council failed to investigate what actions were undertaken or reasons for missing correspondence. Mr X says the situation caused significant distress and anxiety to him and his family. He wants the Council to provide a full and detailed account of its investigation, review its procedures, issue an apology and repay expenses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Council officers were invited to attend the location twice by a neighbour to view heritage features associated with historic grounds in the area. Officers accessed the site using a shared driveway. As the neighbour has a private right of access over the driveway, that right also extends to their visitors. Therefore, the Council were entitled to use that right of access.
6. The Council accepted its officers may have unintentionally stepped on to Mr X’s private property during its visits in the belief they were being shown land owned by the neighbour. The Council has since offered an apology to Mr X and explained it would not attend his property in future without telling him and getting consent. Further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.
7. I recognise the situation caused Mr X frustration and distress. However, the site visits did not result in any formal planning enforcement action, statutory notices being issued or physical damage to his property. Also, the Council did not invite Mr X to the site meeting, he voluntarily attended. Therefore, any injustice these visits may have caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
8. Mr X complained about missing correspondence and the Council’s complaint handling. The Council found no emails from Mr X before December 2025. It said its records were only held for ninety days. An Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to prove with certainty whether an email was received or not if the records for the period no longer exist. We do not normally investigate complaint handling as a stand-alone issue where we are not investigating the substantive matter. As we are not proposing to investigate the Council accessing Mr X’s land, it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling separately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome. Also, any injustice Mr X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman