Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his solicitors’ enquiries as part of his house sale. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot say its actions caused the injustice Mr X claims.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s fee for responding to his solicitors’ enquiries about compliance with obligations under a Section 106 legal agreement as part of his house sale. The Council charged £256 for its response, which Mr X says was vaguely written and very unhelpful, and Mr X believes it should refund the cost. He also wants the Council to pay him £5,000 as he says he had to reduce the sale price of his property due to uncertainty about whether the obligations had been met.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council was entitled to charge Mr X for responding to his solicitors. The enquiry was related to his house sale and taxpayers cannot be expected to pay for the Council’s time to research the matter and respond.
5. Mr X says the Council’s response was vague but this is subjective. The Council could not conclusively show the developer had fulfilled the obligations under the legal agreement so it told Mr X it had “no evidence that any of the obligations mentioned in the agreements… have been complied with” and invited Mr X’s solicitors to provide any evidence to the contrary. This was because Mr X, as successor in title, would be responsible for compliance if the developer had failed to comply.
6. There is no suggestion the Council’s statement was wrong and I consider it sufficiently clear to highlight the potential issue with compliance to Mr X.
7. Mr X agreed a £5,000 price reduction with his buyers and says this was because of failures in the contents of the Council’s letter. But it seems more likely the buyers insisted on a reduction because there was a possibility that in buying the property from Mr X they would be responsible for compliance if the Council decided to enforce the agreement in the future. This would have been no different had the Council confirmed the obligations had not been complied with, rather than stating it had no evidence to show they had. It was in any event Mr X’s decision to agree to the reduction and had he felt the property was worth more he could have declined the offer and put it back on the market.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show the Council’s actions caused the injustice Mr X claims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman