Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s withdrawing access to its land. It is too late to complain about events occurring more than 12 months ago. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to close the access to its land. And we do not consider the complainant has a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s consultation with residents on plans for the land.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains for her father, Mr Y. She says Mr Y has faced ongoing challenges since 2003 when access through an area of Council-owned land leading to his garage was closed by the Council. She says access to the land has now been withdrawn and the locks changed.
2. She also complains the Council sent letters to other residents offering to extend their gardens into the area, despite Mr Y’s concerns remaining unresolved.
3. Ms X wants:
• A permanent land easement granted to Mr Y, formalising his right to access his garage through the Council’s land; and
• A review into the Council’s actions on offering to extend other residents gardens before resolving Mr Y’s access issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X says the Council first decided to close access to the land more than twenty years ago.
8. In 2022, a Councillor wrote to Mr Y, advising he had permission to access his garage via the Council’s land. He advised a timetable should be drawn up to allow Mr Y to remove and return vehicles stored in this garage at that time but gave no permission to clear any other garages. The Councillor also said he would hold the key for Mr Y and be his point of contact to arrange access.
9. However, the Council says the Councillor did not discuss the matter with the relevant officers or advise them of what he had told Mr Y. It says officers understood the Councillor had arranged to meet Mr Y onsite and allow his access to remove his vehicles. The site would then be locked and closed.
10. In 2023, the Councillor returned a key to officers. This was not the key to the access gate. The Councillor has since left office.
11. The law says a complaint must be made within twelve months of the complainant becoming aware of the problem. Ms X confirms Mr Y has been aware of access issues for more than twenty years. There is no reason why he could not have contacted us much sooner about the historic access issued.
12. Ms X complains the Council withdrew access from Mr Y in 2025.
13. The Council says it asked Mr Y to return the key in , but it did not receive a response.
14. Following complaints from other residents about vehicles parked on the site, the Council says it asked Mr Y again to return the key as the site is closed and he has no right of access across its land. Ms X told the Council they had given the key to the previous councillor.
15. The Council confirmed:
• It had not received the correct key back.
• The former councillor was not authorised to give Mr Y access : and
• The site is closed and Mr Y does not have a license to cross its land.
16. An officer offered to meet Mr Y onsite to enable him to retrieve his belongings. Mr Y did not respond. The Council changed the lock in January 2025. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take.
17. Ms X wants the Council to grant Mr Y a permanent easement to cross its land to access his garage. We cannot require the Council to do this.
18. Ms X also wants the Council to review its actions offering to extend other residents gardens before resolving Mr Y’s access issue.
19. The Council has confirmed it consulted residents about what they want done with the closed site. It also confirms it has not yet made a decision.
20. As no decision has been made about the future for the site, I do not consider Mr Y has suffered a significant personal injustice because the Council has asked residents their preferred options.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• It is too late to complain about matters occurring before the Council withdrew Mr Y’s access in 2025.
• We have not seen enough evidence in the way the Council decided to close the access to its land; and
• We do not consider Mr Y has suffered a significant personal injustice because the Council consulted residents on the future for the site.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman