Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr and Mrs Y’s complaint about a major highways scheme near to their property. This is because Mr and Mrs Y will have access to an alternative remedy to seek compensation for disturbance and loss of value. It is unlikely we would find fault in the other matters complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs Y complain about a major highways scheme which they say will significantly affect the value of their home. In particular, they say:
1. The Council failed to notify them in a timely way of the proposals and the likely need to acquire some of their land. Mr and Mrs Y say the Council was aware of the potential need to acquire land in April 2019 but chose not to notify them until September 2019. In the meantime, Mr and Mrs Y had funded significant renovations to their property.
2. The Council has been vague about its intention to acquire some of their land for resilience purposes.
3. The Council’s valuation of their property was significantly less then market value.
4. Council officers responsible for overseeing the acquisition of land for the scheme acted in an unprofessional and bullying manner.
2. Mr and Mrs Y say they have experienced distress and significant injustice because they will be forced to either sell their home at a considerable loss or remain in the property and experience significant disturbance from the new road and roundabout.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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

5. I discussed the complaint with Mr Y and Mrs Y and considered any information they provided.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response alongside the relevant law and guidance which I have referred to where necessary in this statement.
7. I put my provisional findings in a draft decision and invited comments from the complainants and the Council, which I considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

8. Part 1 of the Lands Compensation Act 1973 allows affected people to claim compensation for the depreciation in the market value of a ‘qualifying interest’ caused by the use of land or works. The depreciation must be attributable to ‘physical factors’, which are defined as noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting, and the discharge of any solid or liquid substance.
9. The Lands Chamber replaced the Lands Tribunal in 2009. This is the body which affected people should raise a claim with. In addition to disturbance payments and depreciation in market value, the Tribunal also deals with claims for disputed valuations of compulsorily purchased land or property.

Key background information

10. Mr and Mrs Y live on the route of a major new roundabout and highway. The Council decided it may require some land from Mr and Mrs Y’s front garden and driveway to facilitate a pedestrian crossing as part of the scheme.
11. The Council sent letters to Mr and Mrs Y and other affected properties in August 2019. A meeting then took place with representatives from the Council. Mr and Mrs Y asked the Council to arrange a valuation of their property which took place on 16 September 2019.
12. During a meeting with the Council in October 2019, Mr and Mrs Y explained that they did not wish to move as they were extending and renovating their home at a considerable cost.
13. The Council says it made a verbal offer to purchase Mr and Mrs Y’s house with an additional 10% ‘disturbance allowance’. The Council say Mr and Mrs Y made a counter proposal, which the Council refused. Mr and Mrs Y dispute this and say the Council has never made an offer to buy their property, verbally or otherwise.
14. The Council says it then discussed the possibility of only purchasing a portion of land at the front of their property. The Council say Mr and Mrs Y requested a significant payment which represented the cost of their newly built extension. The Council refused because this far exceeded the valuation. Mr and Mrs Y say they did not request the sum referred to by the Council; instead they made a general comment about the cost of their renovation work.
15. After considering all options, the Council decided it could not justify the sums proposed by Mr and Mrs Y. The Council amended the scheme which meant that it no longer required land from Mr and Mrs Y.

Complaint a)

16. Mr Y complains the Council did not notify him of the proposed works when he obtained planning permission in April 2018 for substantial renovations to their home. He says the Council first confirmed its intentions about the highways scheme in September 2019, despite the Council having confirmed its plans for the scheme in April 2019. As a result, Mr Y says he spent considerable sums in improving his home and he would not have done so if he had received prior notice of the Council’s intentions.
17. In response to my enquiries on this part of the complaint, the Council explained that, whilst it had carried out some ‘concept’ work in April 2019, the scheme was subject to ‘sign offs’ before the Council could share final details with the public.
18. The Council points out that the plans for the overall scheme, which is large and to be completed in phases, have been in the public arena since 2014. The Council has provided information relating to public exhibitions undertaken, as well as letter and leaflet drops to affected residents.
19. In an email to Mr and Mrs Y in January 2021, the Council clarified, “Until acknowledgement of our communication in August [2019] we would not necessarily know who the actual owner is. Even if it were known or suspected our processes would not alter how a scheme was released into the public domain to manage risks. Although our concept work in April suggested land from your property could be required, due process was followed with letters issued in August to all impacted residents at the same time. It had been hoped to issue letters at the beginning of August but holidays meant delaying them to the 22nd in order that the appropriate officer was available to respond to questions and responses by return”.
20. I have discontinued our investigation into this part of Mr Y’s complaint because the claimed underlying injustice is inconvenience, disturbance and loss of property value. I am satisfied Mr and Mrs Y have an alternative remedy available to them, via the Land Compensation Act, which would be reasonable for them to pursue at the appropriate time.
21. Furthermore, it is unlikely we would find fault. There is no evidence to show that plans of the final road design were available in April 2019 showing a requirement to purchase Mr and Mrs Y’s land. Therefore, it is unlikely we would say the Council could and should have informed Mr and Mrs Y before they started work on their property.

Complaint b)

22. Mr and Mrs Y complain the Council has been vague about any future plans to acquire their land. The Council has confirmed that Mr and Mrs Y’s land is no longer needed, including for 'resilience' purposes. I have seen evidence the Council confirmed this to Mr and Mrs Y in a letter dated 26 November 2020.
23. As the Council is no longer pursuing the purchase of any parts of Mr and Mrs Y’s property, I have discontinued my investigation into this part of the complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome the LGSCO could achieve.

Complaint c)

24. In September 2019 the Council appointed a chartered surveyor to independently value Mr and Mrs Y’s home. Although negotiations were at an informal stage, and not part of a formal CPO procedure, the Council followed the guidance provided by government which says, “The acquiring authority will normally appoint a chartered surveyor to undertake the estimate of the market value. You may appoint a surveyor to carry out your own assessment and to negotiate with the acquiring authority on your behalf”.
25. Mr and Mrs Y consider the Council grossly under-valued their home. They have provided a written valuation from a local estate agent in February 2020 which significantly exceeded the independent surveyor’s valuation.

26. The LGSCO is not the correct body to independently decide the value of property or land. We can only look at the process followed by the Council in arranging the valuation to determine whether there was procedural fault causing injustice.
27. I am satisfied the Council appointed a suitably qualified professional to value Mr and Mrs Y’s property in 2019. This was above and beyond the required course of action at the time because the Council was not pursuing a CPO. Although Mr and Mrs Y have provided a counter valuation, I am mindful this was conducted five months after the Council’s valuation and is from an estate agent, rather than a chartered surveyor.
28. I have not found any evidence of procedural fault in how the Council valued Mr and Mrs Y’s property as part of the 2019 negotiations. Furthermore, there is no significant injustice arising from the alleged fault because the Council did not continue with the purchase of the property or any section of the land. If Mr and Mrs Y had proceeded, they would have had the right to challenge the valuation at Tribunal.

Complaint d)

29. Separate to the underlying complaints, Mr Y also asks the Ombudsman to investigate the conduct of Council officers as summarised in paragraph one of this statement. Mr Y explained that officers sometimes acted in a bullying and unprofessional manner during meetings. He reports that one officer acted aggressively and banged his fist on a table during a meeting. Mrs Y also says that an officer acted inappropriately when proposing to discuss the case in the corridors of the Council offices.
30. I have written correspondence between the Council and Mr and Mrs Y. In my impartial view, I do not find the correspondence to be unprofessional or bullying in tone. I understand that Mr and Mrs Y have concerns about the conduct of some face-to-face meetings, but there are no independent accounts or recordings of the meetings in question so the LGSCO cannot reach a view about the conduct of those meetings.

Back to top

Final decision

31. We have discontinued our investigation into the complaint for the reasons explained in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman