Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged misconduct by the Council with respect to historical claims to ownership of the complainant’s land. This is because the issues concern matters and events which occurred between 1960 and 2000. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate historical matters. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons why we should exercise our discretion in this respect. In any event, the complainant could reasonably take court action over the issues raised.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss Q) complains about alleged misconduct by the Council between the years 1960 and 2000 with respect to its claims to the ownership of land which she says was actually owned by her late grandparents, and later herself. Miss Q also complains the Council wrongly registered a local land charge on the land in 2000 which prevented her from being able to sell this in 2023. She explains this amounted to a further and more recent attempt by the Council to unlawfully seize ownership of the land.
2. In summary, Miss Q says the alleged fault caused her significant convenience, emotional distress, and financial loss. As a desired outcome, she wants the Council to apologise for the way is has treated her and her late grandparents, compensate her for her financial losses and review its policies and procedure to ensure service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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).
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate the complaint summary at paragraph one (above) is brief and that Miss Q provided a lot more detail in the information she sent us. However, I believe the summary covers all the key issues necessary and is proportionate to our decision about whether we can and should investigate.
7. The legal restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) inserts a time limit for a member of the public to bring their complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. Its intention is two-fold: to provide us with the best opportunity of arriving at a robust, evidence-based decision on complaints about recent events and to ensure fairness by enabling us to decline an investigation into historic matters, which could and should have formed the basis of a complaint to us far sooner.
8. The complaint issues raised by Miss Q are historical and date back to 1960. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate historical issues. The complaint is late and, in my view, given the passage of time, there would be practical challenges now trying to ascertain evidence, assess fault and injustice in order to reach a robust and meaningful decision and outcome. I recognise there are earlier matters which occurred in 2023 relating to the Council’s registration of a local land charge. However, this matter is inextricably linked to the historical matters Miss Q raises. There are no good reasons why should exercise our discretion and investigate notwithstanding the passage of time.
9. In any event, the complaint is mainly that the Council has been negligent. Deciding about whether an organisation has been negligent usually involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way at evidence as only the court can to make its findings. In addition, only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages for Miss Q’s financial losses. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation. I cannot decide whether an organisation has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. So, I would usually expect someone in Miss Q’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through her insurers. I consider it is reasonable to expect Miss Q to use or to have used the court given she appears to be in legal dispute with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraphs three and four (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman