Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed in responding to enquires about a property the complainant was purchasing. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has already taken action which is a reasonable way to resolve the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council delayed in responding to his questions about whether a legal agreement still applied to a property he was purchasing. He says this delay forced him to purchase an indemnity insurance policy to cover the risk of proceeding with the purchase in the absence of the information requested from the Council. He also says he wasted a lot of time and effort on chasing what should have been a simple response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to start with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has already taken. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including the Stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
4. I considered our ‘Assessment Code’ and ‘Guidance on good practice: Remedies’.

Back to top

My assessment

5. On 20 January 2021, Mr X emailed the Council’s general legal services address, with queries related to the local land charges search results that had been provided to Mr X’s solicitor by the Council.
6. Mr X chased a response on 10 February. On 3 March, a Council officer apologised for failing to respond, and on 5 March the officer confirmed he was still waiting for information requested from other departments. On 23 March, the Council confirmed there were no outstanding obligations under the legal agreement.
7. Mr X complained the time taken to respond to his enquires had put the property transaction at risk, so he had been forced to pay £431 for an indemnity policy. The Council provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 21 April. Mr X escalated his complaint the same day but had not received a response by late‑July, despite chasing the Council. Following our intervention, the Council provided its Stage 2 response on 6 October.
8. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council:
• Noted the impact the Covid-19 pandemic had on staffing levels, and the increase in workload/property enquiries resulting from the temporary stamp duty tax relief.
• Said it could not be held accountable or responsible for property purchase deadlines agreed between parties outside of the Council.
• Acknowledged Council officers should not have given Mr X an internal email address for Legal Services when submitting his property enquiries. Instead, these should have been directed to the Land Charges team in the Planning department, which has formal processes in place to respond. If Legal Services had not attempted to be helpful and in effect subvert the proper process, the Council is certain the Land Charges section would have formally advised Mr X it could not meet his deadlines, and he is therefore likely to have had to purchase the indemnity insurance anyway.
• Acknowledged failures in allocating the Stage 2 complaint to the appropriate department resulted in significant delays in responding.
• Offered to pay £431 on the grounds that:
1. Mr X should have been properly advised the Council could not meet his transaction deadline; and,
2. By failing to do (1), Mr X’s expectations were raised, and he was put to time and inconvenience in pursuing the subsequent complaint in the belief he had incurred unnecessary costs.
9. I have considered our remedies guidance, and the principle that we seek to put complainants back in the position they would have been in but for the fault. I am satisfied the payment of £431 is a reasonable way to remedy the complaint. This recognises that, although Mr X is likely to have incurred the insurance fee anyway, he would not have been put to the subsequent time, effort, and inconvenience in pursuing his complaint if the Council had managed his expectations and informed him at the outset of the likely enquiry response timescales.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already provided a reasonable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman