Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with land in its area. This is because the actions of the Council have not caused Mr X an injustice. Parts of the complaint are also late as they occurred more than 12 months ago and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise these sooner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to force a third party to allow him to continue operating his business from land in its area. Mr X says the Council has not properly dealt with landowner’s intentions regarding the land and has delayed taking action to acquire it.
2. Mr X says the actions of the Council have caused him to lose revenue and has prevented his company from operating.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X is the owner of a leisure company which used to operate on land within the Council’s area.
8. In early 2020 the owner of the land evicted the company when the agreement to use the land came to an end.
9. The Council was keen to maintain some leisure activities on the site and entered into discussions with the landowners which resulted in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This did not cover Mr X’s company.
10. People who used the facility provided by Mr X’s company have already complained to the Ombudsman about this matter and we found no fault by the Council. This was because the Council had no power to require the landowner to reinstate Mr X’s company as this was part of a separate legal dispute between
    Mr X’s company and the landowner.
11. Mr X says he obtained further information about the MOU and the actions of the Council and the landowner following a Freedom of Information request. However, this does not change our view that the Council is not responsible for resolving the legal dispute between Mr X’s company and the landowner. The Council cannot compel the landowner to allow the company to use the land again especially as this has been the subject of court action between Mr X and the landowner. Therefore, the actions of the Council have not caused Mr X an injustice.
12. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s progress in purchasing the land. Mr X no longer has any rights to use the land and so any delays by the Council in purchasing the land have not caused him an injustice.
13. Mr X raised other matters regarding the Council’s actions in relation to the land dating back to 2015. Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsman until July 2021. Therefore, I have only considered events since July 2020. Anything which occurred before this date would be considered a late complaint and there are no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the actions of the Council have not caused him an injustice. We will not consider events which occurred before July 2020 as these are late complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman