Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to sell him a piece of land. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to sell him a piece of land close to his home. Mr X said its decision was contrary to a decision made in 2004, when he was sold a different piece of land.
2. Mr X said the Council treated him unfairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In January 2025, Mr X asked the Council to sell him a piece of land, which is close to his home. He said in 2004, the Council sold him a similar piece of land.
7. In its response, the Council said it did not own the land and so could not sell it. It also said, even if it owned the land, it would need to be confident the land may not be needed in future. It said this could be for example, for placing signs or road widening. It said it was not confident the land would not be needed.
8. The Council also highlighted the decision in 2004 Mr X referenced, was made by a district council which has since been abolished. It therefore said it could not comment on its actions.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement here. It does not appear unreasonable it cannot sell Mr X a piece of land it does not own. Nor is it unreasonable that it did not act in line with the actions taken by an abolished council over 20 years ago.
10. In any case, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
11. There is no evidence of Mr X suffering a significant injustice which would meet the threshold for a full Ombudsman investigation.
12. For these reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman