Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly consider his concerns about the position of his boundary on plans to develop neighbouring land and failed to negotiate. This is because the matter has already been considered by it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have taken this up with the Land Registration Division of the Property Chamber, First Tier Tribunal. Mr X could have gone back to the Tribunal if he believed the Council had not complied with its directions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that a planning application boundary has encroached onto his land. Mr X states that the Council were inefficient in using a digital map instead of a surveyed map which agreed with Mr X’s deeds. This has caused Mr X a financial impact as he had to pay legal fees to defend his property from illegal possession. Mx X also states it has caused him stress as the council would not negotiate through the Land Registration Division of the Property Chamber, First Tier Tribunal. The Council only withdrew their complaint objection at the very end of the extended negotiation period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council included Council were in conflict with the Town and Country Planning Act in relation to a planning application where the red line went over his property in various placespart of his land in a planning application without his consent.
6. Mr X applied to the Land Registry regarding the boundary shown on the plans. The Council objected to the PA’s Mr X’s Land Registry application. The matter was referred back to the Land Registration of the Property Chamber, First Tier Tribunal. In October 2020 tThe Tribunal stated in October 2020 thatsaid the Council and Mr X should negotiate and gave them a deadline of 25th February 2021 which was extended to 25th June 20210 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
   Mr X states he tried to engage the Council in negotiation but they did not respond until the end of the time period and withdrew their complaint objection to his Land Registry application on 26th May 2021. Mr X states this prolonged period has cost him money and time.
7. The Council stated theysaid it objected to PA’s Mr X’s first registration of land application but reluctantly had to withdrawlater withdrew its objection on commercial grounds as the potential cost of going to a Tribunal to defend the councils position outweighed the value of the land concerned.
8. The Council wrote to PA’sMr X’s solicitors advising that in the Council’s view the councilit acted reasonably in seeking to defend their its title and taking the time to reach a decision.
9. We will not investigate this complaint as the matter has already been considered by a Tribunal. If Mr X believed the Council was not engaging with the Tribunal’s directions it was open to him to go back to the Tribunal to raise this. I cannot see any reason why Mr X could not have done so.
10.  
11. Mr X could have referred the matter back to the Tribunal and stated that the Council had failed to engage with the process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman