Summary: Mr Q complained that the Council helped and supported a community land trust to block the sale of his property. The complaint was closed because there was no evidence of fault by the Council in the matters raised by Mr Q.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that Cornwall Council helped and supported a community land trust to block the sale of his property when he came to sell it. Mr Q said that, as a result, the sale took much longer than necessary, and he lost thousands of pounds on it.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the actions of the Council in relation to the sale of Mr Q’s property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as community land trusts. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. This includes the bundle of documents Mr Q submitted to the Council when he complained to it.
7. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr Q and the Council. I considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Community land trusts are organisations set up and run by people within a community to develop and manage homes and other assets in the local area.
9. Section 106 (s106) agreements are legal agreements between an applicant seeking planning permission and the local planning authority. Cornwall Council is a local planning authority.
10. In this case, Z Community Land Trust (Z CLT) developed properties in the Council’s area several years ago. The properties have a s106 agreement attached to them which controls who the properties may be sold to and how much they may be sold for. The Council is responsible for ensuring the terms of the s106 agreement are complied with. It has no responsibility for, or control over, the actions of Z CLT.
11. Among other things, the s106 agreement says:

• the property must be valued by a RICS valuer;
• the Council will approve the property valuation and confirm the maximum sale price (36% of the RICS valuation);
• the property must be sold to a qualifying person;
• a qualifying person is someone with a local connection who cannot afford to buy a property on the open market.

12. Help to Buy South West (HtBSW) is a Government scheme which provides a range of options to help make it more affordable for someone to buy a home. In this case, HtBSW acted on behalf of the Council to check whether any prospective purchaser for Mr Q’s property was eligible to do so.

What happened

13. Mr Q owned a property which he bought through Z CLT.
14. In 2018 Mr Q served a notice on Z CLT, so starting the process of selling his property. Most of the documents and correspondence he provided concern his contact with Z CLT after he served the notice.
15. Mr Q’s first prospective purchasers did not register with HtBSW and were, in any event, not eligible to buy the property as their income was too high.
16. Z CLT suggested a RICS valuer. Mr Q was not happy with the valuer as he said he was a personal friend of Z CLT. As a result, the valuer refused to continue and provided only a verbal valuation. The Council would not accept this. Nor would it accept a valuation from Mr Q’s valuer as he had not been RICS registered for long enough.
17. By this time, Mr Q’s relationship with Z CLT had broken down. In an attempt to move things forward, the Council suggested taking an average of the two valuations. Mr Q refused this and eventually found a suitable RICS valuer. The Council said the valuation and sale price complied with the s106 agreement.
18. Mr Q had also found another buyer for his property, and HtBSW said they were eligible. However, Z CLT said the notice Mr Q had served setting the sale process in motion had expired. He had to re-serve the notice. The sale then went through in 2019.
19. Mr Q complained to Z CLT and to the Council. He said the Council had failed in its duty of care towards them as sellers because it had not supported them or held Z CLT to account for its wrongdoing.
20. Mr Q later brought his complaint to us. He said the Council did not act impartially and did not accept that he had met the requirements of the s106 agreement. He said officers had lied and forced him to accept unfair terms. He believes the Council gave Z CLT help and support which enabled it to unfairly block the sale and lower the sale price. Mr Q would like the Council to offer him compensation.

Analysis

21. The Council was not responsible for, nor did it have control over, the actions of Z CLT. It was not required to support Mr Q through the sale process. Nor did it owe him a duty of care in the way he believes. Instead, the Council’s role was limited to ensuring the sale complied with the s106 agreement. It seems to me this is what it did. I have seen nothing in the available information to support Mr Q’s allegation the Council helped or supported Z CLT to obstruct his sale, or that officers lied and forced him to accept unfair terms.
22. The Council should not, perhaps, have suggested taking an average of the two valuations described in paragraph 15. But I would not criticise it for this as it was attempting to move the sale forward. In any event, Mr Q did not agree to the Council’s proposal and later found a suitable valuer.
23. So, I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The complaint is closed because I did not find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

25. I have not investigated the actions of Z CLT as it is not a body in our jurisdiction.
26. I have not investigated the s106 agreement reached between Z CLT and the Council when it approved the planning application for the property Mr Q bought. The s106 agreement was made several years ago, so a complaint about this would be late. Mr Q would have been aware of the s106 agreement and the restrictions it placed on a future sale of his property when he bought it. If he had concerns about the s106 agreement he could have discussed them with his legal adviser at the time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman