West Berkshire Council (21 009 832)

Category : Planning > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 26 Nov 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the effect of public works on the complainant’s property. This is because it is out of our jurisdiction as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to a tribunal.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, to whom I refer here as Mrs B, says that the Council mismanaged construction of a culvert inside and on the edge of her property. Mrs B considers that the whole process of constructing a culvert was overly lengthy and extremely stressful. She would expect compensation from the Council and some consequential drainage work on her property as well as determining the boundary between her and the Council’s land in accordance with the original agreement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  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

  1. I considered information provided by Mrs B and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Public works adjacent to Mrs B’s property started in 2016 and were marked, as stated by Mrs B, by continuous Council’s failures to provide her with plans, the Council’s contradictory statements regarding compensation and further works on the stream in Mrs B’s garden. Mrs B complains that at some stage of the construction works the Council’s contractors trespassed on Mrs B’s property.
  2. Mrs B says that the Council has been changing its position regarding a piece of land which was in the past agreed for Mrs B to keep. This matter necessitated instructing a solicitor and further unnecessary expenses for Mrs B.
  3. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considers compensation cases for the negative effect on land caused by public works. It is reasonable for Mrs B to use this route.
  4. Moreover, we would not be able to achieve outcomes sought by Mrs B – determining her compensation claim and resolving the dispute over the piece of land. Compensation claims can only be pursued in courts or tribunals. When the ownership of land is disputed, a claim for adverse possession can be made in the Land Registry.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because it is out of our jurisdiction as it is reasonable to expect Mrs B to appeal to a tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings