Summary: Mr X complained about the Council claiming he had encroached on its land. He says the boundary has not changed since he obtained Land Registry evidence that he owns it. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because property ownership is a legal matter which can only be determined by the courts. It is reasonable for Mr X or the Council to seek a legal judgement on the boundary if they cannot resolve the dispute.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council claiming he had encroached on its land. The Council told him a week later that he had not taken its land but then later confirmed its original view that he had. He says he has not changed his boundary and that he has Land registry evidence that he owns the land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint and he has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X owns a property with a boundary alongside Council owned land. In 2019 the Council decided to sell its land and following a survey it contacted Mr X to tell him it believed he had encroached over the boundary. He believes this is because his boundary does not align with the boundary line of other properties.
6. Mr X telephoned the Council and a week later he was told that there had been an error and that in fact his boundary line was correct. Some weeks after this the Council carried out another survey of the site in preparation for sale. It concluded that Mr X had encroached on the land as originally stated and wrote to him to confirm this view.
7. Mr X challenged the Council’s change of opinion and it apologised for the original change. It informed him that a more detailed topographical survey had been applied on the second occasion. He asked why a second survey was required. This is because the Council is due to sell the land and the boundary lines must be accurately determined for the sale to go ahead.
8. The Ombudsman cannot determine boundaries of private or public land. There is clearly a dispute between the Council and Mr X which could only be determined by the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because property ownership is a legal matter which can only be determined by the courts. It is reasonable for Mr X or the Council to seek a legal judgement on the boundary if they cannot resolve the dispute.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman