Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the main entrance to a school. It was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. Even if the complaint was not late, the central issue is a dispute about compensation for public works affecting the complainant, and it would be reasonable for him to refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal as set out in law.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council decided to change the main entrance to a school and introduce traffic calming measures on the road before the school gates. Mr X uses this road to get access to his garage and he says he now has difficulty getting access to his garage at peak times.
2. Mr X is unhappy the Council has not provided what he considers suitable compensation for the effect of the works on him and his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. 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)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the Council changed the main entrance to a school and pedestrianised the access road leading to the entrance. Mr X says this meant he has had difficulty getting access to his garage which is partway along the road, at peak times of the school day.
9. Mr X says he met with the Council in October 2019, to discuss the decision to alter the entrance. Mr X says the Council were considering asking him to give up his access rights to his garage to resolve the matter. Mr X has not been able to reach an agreement with the Council.
10. Correspondence from 2019 shows the Council offered to carry out or cover the cost of works to change Mr X’s access to his property and resolve his difficulties. But he has not accepted this and wants significant compensation for the effect of these ‘public works’ on him and his property. Any compensation claim falls under the Land Compensation Act 1973 which says any dispute is to be referred to and decided by the Upper Tribunal. Given the sums involved it would be reasonable for Mr X to ask the Upper tribunal to decide the matter, so we would not investigate his complaint even if it was not late.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the main entrance to a school. It was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. It is also the case Mr X could reasonably refer his dispute about land compensation to the Upper Tribunal as set out in law.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman