Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a piece of land it owns adjacent to Mr X’s property. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says Council owned land adjacent to his property is not maintained and causes him concerns with regard to safety, security and general nuisance to his property. Also, he does not accept the Council’s reasons for not selling the land to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to maintain a strip of Council owned land which runs adjacent to his property. He said overhanging trees and shrubs were damaging his property and he offered to buy the land in question from the Council so he could properly maintain it.
7. The Council addressed his complaint under its complaints procedure. While it acknowledged it could have been more direct in telling him that it had taken a decision not to maintain areas such as the one in question, and that it could have taken action to address the overgrown area affecting his property, it explained why it would not sell the land to him. It also told Mr X that it had agreed to maintain the strip of land bordering his property annually to minimise encroachment onto his property.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us saying he has no confidence the Council will maintain the land going forward and stating his preference was for it to sell it to him at a fair price. However, the Council has already confirmed it will maintain the strip alongside his property and it has decided it will not sell the land to him and is under no obligation to do so.
9. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says the Council has not adequately addressed his safety and security concerns but the Council has found no safety or security issues which currently require attention. This is a decision for the Council to make and we cannot question the merits of it. The Council has adequately addressed Mr X’s complaint and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman