Summary: Mr X complains the Council lied about the purpose of a meeting at his home in 2019. And it has caused stress and anxiety by threatening to serve a Compulsory Purchase Order for part of his front garden as part of a proposed cycle route improvement scheme. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor is further investigation likely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council lied to him about the purpose of a meeting at his home. He says it is threatening to use a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to acquire part of his front garden. He says this has caused stress and anxiety. He wants the Council to remove the CPO threat as he would rather negotiate the sale of the land using a third party to act for him

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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. 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)(b))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In support of a national scheme investing in public and sustainable transport, the Council is proposing to improve walking and cycling links where Mr X lives.
7. Mr X’s home is on a road earmarked for improvement. His front garden has a wall around the perimeter with a hedge growing above it. There were concerns this would affect the visibility from a proposed cycle and pedestrian crossing at the site. In September, the Council wrote to him asking to meet him at his home to allow officers to assess if removing the hedge would achieve the required visibility for traffic approaching the proposed crossing location.
8. Mr X says that when officers arrived at his home, they told him the site was an accident black-spot and the cycle path is used by cyclists travelling to the station. They asked him if he would sell his front garden.
9. The Council says no topographic survey had been carried out. Therefore, officers needed to visit the site to see what work was required to improve visibility at the planned crossing. It says at the visit it became clear that part of Mr X’s garden wall would need to be move back by roughly 0.5 to 1 metre. They asked Mr X if he would consider selling a strip of his garden to the Council.
10. There are no written or audio records of what was said at the meeting. Officers state Mr X refused to consider selling any of his land, suggesting he would rather sell his home. They also recall Mr X asking if the Council ever used CPOs in such circumstances. They say they confirmed the Council does have powers to buy land for highways works under a CPO if it cannot get the land needed through negotiation. But they also explained the Council might not approve a CPO.

Assessment

11. Mr X complains the Council lied about the purpose of its visit to his home. He says officers knew the Council wanted him to sell part of his garden to improve visibility at the new crossing. However, I have seen no evidence of this. The Council visited Mr X’s home by appointment to see what needs to be done to improve visibility should the proposed scheme go ahead. It asked if he would consider selling part of his land and advised it does have CPO powers but prefers to negotiate.
12. There are no records of the meeting. Without any records it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
13. Mr X says he wants the Council to remove the threat of CPO and negotiate with him via a third party. A council report dated January 2020 says:

“In order for this scheme to operate safely it is likely to be necessary to improve forward visibility southbound approaching the crossing. This will entail acquisition or dedication of a small area of land on the frontage to [Mr X’s Home]. Subject to approval of the scheme formal negotiations will be entered into with the property owner for acquisition or dedication of the land. If agreement for such acquisition or dedication cannot be agreed by negotiation, then a CPO may be required.”

14. I understand that Mr X finds the situation stressful. However, it is clear from the section of report detailed above, that should the proposed scheme go ahead, the Council’s preferred choice is to negotiate with Mr X. If he wants to do so via a third-party this will be for him to arrange. Mr X says this report has blighted his property. This might be the case if he wanted to sell his property. However, he has said he does not as he has said he wants to negotiate the sale of part of the garden.
15. Should negotiations fail and the Council decide to serve Mr X with a CPO, he will be able to object to it. If he (or another person served with a CPO) objects, the proposal will be referred to the Secretary of State who will appoint an Inspector to assess the scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint.
17. I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council asking to meet Mr X at his home. I consider the meeting was held to discuss what work would be needed should the proposed improvement to the cycle route network go ahead. There are no records of the meeting and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
18. The Council has already said it wants to negotiate the purchase of part of Mr X’s front garden which is the outcome he is seeking. Should negotiations fail and the Council serve him a CPO, he can object, and the matter will be referred to the Secretary of State.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman