Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about an area of land next to his property. This is because it is not unreasonable to expect Mr B to go to court to seek a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that although the Council drew up a Plan for an area of unregistered land next to his property, it has failed to complete and fund it. He told us this is having a detrimental effect on his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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:

• 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

5. I have considered the information Mr B provided and his comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B is seeking the following:

• confirmation that the Plan is active and the Council is responsible for funding and implementing it;
• for the Council to take urgent action to provide lateral support to his property;
• for the Council to remove a 2003 Enforcement Order and make financial restitution, and to give him compensation for failing to provide oversight of the maintenance of the Right of Way.

7. Mr B told us the Council’s failure to maintain footpaths on the land has disadvantaged him and other people who have disabilities and does not meet its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
8. In October 2019 the Council wrote to Mr B’s solicitors about the matters they had raised on Mr B’s behalf. The Council said the Plan to which Mr B referred was a vision document, written by one person, and neither the Council nor the Parish Council had adopted it. It said it did not own the land and the management of it had been delegated to a voluntary organisation. Mr B has disputed what the Council has said about adoption of the Plan and its legal responsibilities.
9. Mr B told us he has already incurred significant legal costs. He said it is unreasonable to expect elderly and disabled council taxpayers to incur court costs and for council taxpayers to pay the Council’s court costs. But, in this case, it is not unreasonable to expect Mr B to seek a remedy by going to court. That is because legal matters are at issue. The Ombudsman does not have powers to rule on them. The Council’s responsibilities for the land are in dispute and it is a matter for a court of law, ultimately, to determine them.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is not unreasonable to expect Mr B to go to court to seek a remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman