Summary: The Ombudsman 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. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to take into account a dispute over the position of a boundary when granting planning permission for development he says would encroach onto his land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. A neighbouring landowner applied for planning permission to develop their land several years ago. Mr X contacted the Council to dispute the plans as he said they included land which he owned. The Council sought to clarify the issue with the developer but they insisted they owned the land. The Council accepted its evidence and granted planning permission. Mr X then spent almost £5,500 and two years trying to resolve the boundary dispute with the developer and seeking to clarify the position of the boundary with the Land Registry. Once the issue was resolved the developer applied to vary the planning permission to take account of the new boundary position but Mr X complained it was still not correct. He says the Council has now accepted this but complains it should have done so sooner. He wants the Council to reimburse him for his costs in clarifying the boundary position.
5. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is not the Council’s role to resolve boundary disputes; when Mr X raised his concerns the Council sought to clarify the boundary position with the developer but the developer maintained it owned the full extent of the land shown in the plans. The Council was entitled to rely on the developer’s response and its grant of planning permission did not give the developer the right to build on or take ownership of any land owned by Mr X.
6. Mr X obtained legal advice, incurred costs in clarifying the true boundary and went to time and trouble to register it with the Land Registry; this is not in doubt. But while this may have been prompted by the Council’s decision the basis for it was the underlying boundary dispute with the developer and not the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.
7. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause the injustice Mr X claims. It is also unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman