Land


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 089)

    Statement Not upheld Land 10-Jan-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in requiring Mr Y to remediate contaminated land via the use of conditions attached to his planning permission.

  • Surrey County Council (19 006 269)

    Statement Not upheld Land 23-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will has discontinued his investigation into Mr C's complaint about how the Council placed safeguarding restrictions on his property. This is because the events happened too long ago to allow for a rigorous investigation. Furthermore, Mr C can serve a blight notice to the Council, and appeal to the Land Tribunal.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 008 055)

    Statement Upheld Land 17-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council is at fault for not registering a notice on the land registry and not communicating with him. The Council has registered the notice and apologised for its delay and inadequate communication.

  • London Borough of Ealing (19 004 850)

    Statement Upheld Land 27-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the process the Council followed when he complained about changes to a boundary fence on land behind his property. There was no fault in the Council's actions. However, there was fault in the way it responded to the complaint. The Council agreed to send a written apology to Mr X for the fault identified with its complaint handling.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 843)

    Statement Not upheld Land 05-Nov-2019

    Summary: A Residents Association complains at the Council's decision to market land for sale without carrying out public consultation. We do not uphold the complaint finding that officers were not under a duty to carry out such consultation.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 002 146)

    Statement Upheld Land 04-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council agreed to sell him some land before withdrawing from the deal. The Council's original agreement to sell the land to Mr X was against its own Land Disposal Policy. The Council's actions and poor advice led to Mr X incurring legal fees. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mr X to remedy his injustice.

  • Chichester District Council (18 012 095)

    Statement Not upheld Land 20-Sep-2019

    Summary: There was no fault with the way the Council dealt with the disposal of some land in its area.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (18 015 880)

    Statement Upheld Land 02-Sep-2019

    Summary: Ms C says the Council delayed in making a decision on whether to allow an electrical cable to cross its land to her father's commercial unit. She also says it wrongly refused to allow connection until the property had been valued by a surveyor and insisted on using an overpriced surveyor for the valuation. The Council was at fault for a lengthy delay. This caused injustice. However, it was not at fault for insisting on the valuation or using its pre-approved surveyor.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 010 936)

    Statement Upheld Land 20-Aug-2019

    Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to respond to his complaint about its use of statutory powers to end occupation of land he owns. The complainant also says the Council has not properly explained a potential breach of data protection. The Council says it properly considered all available powers, researched ownership, visited the site and gathered evidence, took professional advice and sought a court injunction to remove the occupants. It did not have the resources to help with clearing the waste left on the land and served notice on the landowners to clear it. The Council says it followed usual procedures in identifying addresses for service and does not believe this resulted in a breach of data protection. The Council recognises it failed to follow up the complainant's complaint when it should. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault in its follow up of the complaint and misdirection of a letter but without fault in deciding which of its statutory powers it should use to achieve an end to the occupation.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (17 010 991)

    Statement Upheld Land 05-Aug-2019

    Summary: Ms C complains about the Council's refusal to sell land to the rear of her property. Ms C says she has spent unnecessary time, trouble and professional fees in pursuing the matter. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council but considers the agreed actions of an apology and written decision about the sale of the land are enough to provide a suitable remedy.