Summary: Mr C complains that the Council gave him wrong information when replying to pre-purchase enquiries and delayed in responding to his complaint. He says his house has reduced in value and suffers from excessive passing traffic. He also says that pursuing his complaint caused him stress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains that the Council gave him wrong information when replying to pre-purchase enquiries and failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner. He says his house has reduced in value and suffers from excessive passing traffic. He says pursuing his complaint has caused him stress and inconvenience.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr C and the Council provided.
4. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr C purchased his property in 2015. It is located on a new estate. The Council had granted planning permission for the development in 2014.
6. As part of the conveyancing process, Mr C’s solicitors requested a local authority search. There are two parts to a local authority search. The first part is a request for a search of the local land charges register which holds information about a property such as restrictions, listed buildings status and conservation areas. The second part is a set of standard enquiries made on form CON29 to obtain information held by a local authority about a property that could affect its future use or development. This includes major road scheme proposals; road adoption status; rail schemes and proposals; and planning decisions that could affect the property.
7. The Council responded to the search in December 2014. It completed the CON29 form confirming that Mr C’s road was unadopted and that there were no major road scheme proposals within 200 metres of his property.
8. In September 2019 Mr C complained to the Council after the road on which he lives became a through road to another housing estate and the bus route. Mr C said the Council had failed to mention this when completing the CON29 and he thought the road would be a cul-de-sac. He also says the Council omitted to mention the planning permission for the new housing estate.

Analysis

9. The questions on the CON29 about new road proposals relate only to major road schemes and would not include an extension of a minor road in a housing estate. There are therefore no grounds to criticise the Council for failing to mention this.
10. The CON29 form also includes questions relating to whether the road is adopted. The Council confirmed that Mr C’s road was not adopted and there were no proposals to adopt it at that time. There are no grounds to criticise this. The Council did not adopt the road until some four years later so the information was correct at the time the search was made.
11. Having been informed that the road was unadopted it was open to Mr C’s solicitors to make further enquiries to determine the future proposals for the road. They could have made further enquiries of the highways department or submitted optional enquiries on form CON290 to find out whether there were any road proposals by private bodies such as a private developer.
12. In any event, the solicitors should have been on notice from the approved plans for the housing development of which Mr C’s property forms part, that the road on which he lives was never intended to be a cul-de-sac and would eventually be extended. The plans were available on the Council’s website and show the road ending at the edge of the application site but is not shown as a cul-de-sac.
13. The transport assessment submitted with the application for planning permission for the estate shows there was an intention that Mr C’s road would become a through road. It stated, “a route will be available through the development along what might be termed the spine road”. It also stated, “the development spine road provide [sic] the opportunity for traffic using parallel routes to reassign through the development”.
14. In addition, the planning officer’s report in relation to the planning application for Mr C’s housing estate refers to an application for another proposed housing estate adjacent to it and states “the main access road for both sites would provide an indirect, convoluted and traffic calmed link between [the two main roads]”. This also shows the intention was that the road on which Mr C’s house is situated would continue on to the other proposed housing estate. This report was on the Council’s website and available to members of the public wanting information about the development.
15. There was no requirement for the Council to mention bus routes on the CON29 because there are no questions about bus routes.
16. The planning officer’s report referred to above refers to a future bus route. It states, “The main route through the site has been designed to accommodate a bus route… We propose to introduce a bus service linking the site to the town centre upon the completion of the new link road… We are requesting that as part of the travel plan for the site, the developer provides information regarding bus services to any new residents at the site”. This information was therefore in the public domain when Mr C bought his property.
17. There was no requirement for the Council to mention planning permission for the new housing estate adjacent to that on which Mr C lives. His solicitor had requested information about planning permissions affecting Mr C’s property. This normally means a council will only provide details of planning permissions that directly and immediately affect the property. This would not include the new housing estate.
18. For the reasons set out above, I find no fault in the way the Council responded to the pre-purchase enquiries.

Response to Mr C’s complaint

19. The Council took just over three months to respond to Mr C’s complaint which is significantly longer than the time limit set out in its complaints procedure. However, I do not consider this delay caused Mr C a significant injustice sufficient to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing this issue where we have found no fault in respect of the substantive complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I do not uphold Mr C’s complaint.
21. I have completed my investigation on the basis I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman