Summary: Ms X complained the Council misrepresented the fees and process involved in her buying council owned land next to her home. She also complained it took too long to consider her request and her complaint. We found fault by the Council which caused Ms X uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make her payment in recognition of the injustice caused to her.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council misrepresented the fees and process involved in buying council owned land next to her home. She complained the Council took too long to act on her request to buy the land and the fees increased. For these reasons, and ill health, the purchase became unviable.
2. Ms X states the Council’s actions prevented her buying the land, which she could have used to help her adapt her home for her disability needs. She stated she incurred financial loss because of the fees she paid to start the purchase, and she has been caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

7. The Ombudsman normally expects a person to complain to them within 12 months of knowing something has happened which affects them. Ms X complains about matters dating back to late 2017. I have exercised discretion to investigate these matters now. This is because Ms X has been unwell and has pursued matters with the Council when able to do so.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. I have set out my thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and I considered Ms X’s comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

10. This states that a Council can dispose of land held by them, but it should not dispose of land under this section for less than the best that could be reasonably obtained.

The Council’s policy for the disposal of council owned land and buildings in 2018

11. This policy says the Council will arrange internal valuations for land where value does not exceed £50,000 or it is an open market sale. It says an external valuation will be used for all other sales including where a sale at less than best price is being considered; or if the land is to be sold subject to a restrictive covenant affecting its value.

The Council’s policy for the disposal of council owned land and buildings in 2023

12. This policy says the Director of Regeneration and Growth with approve the appointment of a valuer and decide if the valuation of land should be conducted internally or by and external valuer.

Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG)

13. Disabled Facilities Grants are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
14. Section 23 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 explains what a DFG can be used for.

What happened

15. The following chronology is a summary of the key events. It does not show everything that happened.
16. Ms X lives in a property next to a land owned by the Council.
17. In December 2017 Ms X asked the Council about buying the land to extend her home and garden.
18. In March 2018 the Council told Ms X it was willing to sell her the land. It explained that:
• it must advertise the sale of the land for two consecutive weeks in the local press and then start a 28-day consultation period.
• if it received no objections preventing the sale, it will then arrange for a valuation of the land by a surveyor.
• Ms X will need to pay the advertising costs of £500, surveyor costs and the Council’s legal costs.
19. In April Ms X said she would like to buy the land. She said the Council’s legal department told her the legal costs would be £800.
20. The Council told Ms X it could only confirm the surveyor’s cost once appointed. It checked Ms X wanted to continue and she confirmed she did.
21. In June the Council began a review of its small land purchase scheme. It halted all land sales while the review was underway. The Council did not tell Ms X until she asked it for an update.
22. In December Ms X told the Council it was taking too long to progress the sale and she was withdrawing her agreement to cover the Council’s legal costs and the cost of a surveyor.
23. In January 2019 the Council told Ms X the review was not finished, and sales remained on hold. It closed her case.
24. In April Ms X told the Council she wanted to buy the land. She told it she had been unwell and would like to use the land to extend and adapt her home for her needs.
25. In June the Council told Ms X it was willing to sell her the land. It said it would need to advertise the sale of the land. This would cost £600. It also said a valuation by a surveyor would cost around £500 and its legal costs would be around £800. Ms X did not reply.
26. In November the Council wrote to Ms X saying it would close the case if she did not reply.
27. Ms X replied saying she would like to buy the land, and she paid the advertising costs.
28. The Council advertised the sale. There were no objections to the sale.
29. In January 2020 the Council told Ms X the sale could advance. It said the cost of a valuation by a surveyor would be £1250. It told Ms X that following an external audit all land sales would subject to a valuation by an external surveyor. It said its legal costs would be £900.
30. In April Ms X told the Council she would like to continue with the sale.
31. In August the Council told Ms X it was getting an external surveyor.
32. In November the Council told Ms X the cost of a surveyor would be £2160.
33. Ms X queried the cost because it was significantly higher than the cost originally quoted to her. She asked the Council to note the land would be used for a garden only. The Council said it need to appoint an external surveyor, and it had appointed the surveyor who gave the lowest quote.
34. Unhappy Ms X made a stage one complaint in December. She complained the Council had misrepresented the costs and process involved in buying the land.
35. In January 2021 the Council replied to Ms X’s complaint. It said its policy required it use an external surveyor to value the land. It said it followed the correct process to appoint a surveyor. The reply did not tell Ms X how to escalate her complaint.
36. In February Ms X agreed to continue with the sale. However the sale did not progress.
37. In March 2022 the Council was place under government intervention.
38. In 2023 Ms X made a stage two complaint to the Council. She complained:
• her request to buy the land met the aims of its policy for developing stronger communities and neighbourhoods.
• the Council did not tell her how to escalate her stage one complaint.
• it took the Council two years to value the land and the costs increased unreasonably; and
• the Council’s policy does not say an external valuation is necessary.
39. The Council replied in August 2023. It said:
• its vision is the framework it uses for making decisions. However all decisions must be scrutinised appropriately.
• its policy allows for internal and external valuation at the discretion of the Director for Regeneration and Growth. The Council has decided all valuations will be done externally to ensure transparency.
• it accepted it did not tell Ms X how to escalate her complaint and apologised.
• both parties delayed the sale and so the process took longer than expected.
• as a gesture of goodwill it would cap the cost of an external surveyor at £500. Ms X would still need to pay the Council’s legal costs, which it estimated to be £900.
40. Following its response Ms X asked the Council if she would have to pay to re-advertise the sale. It replied saying it would cover the cost of readvertising the purchase. Ms X also asked if it would refund the money paid by her if she did not continue with the sale. It said it would not.
41. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. Her grounds of complaint remained the same. She also complained the Council’s actions had prevented her from adapting her home to meet her needs. She said the Council should allow her to use a DFG to buy the land.
42. We made enquiries of the Council. It said the DFG funding cannot be used to buy the land. It said it had arranged for an OT assessment for Ms X to see what help it could offer her. It also explained that an external valuation was necessary for the purchase under its 2018 policy because Ms X said the land would be for garden use only. This meant that the land would be sold for less than best consideration and a restrictive covenant would be applied to the land.

Finding

Delay

43. Discussions between Ms X and the Council took a significant time with periods of delay by both parties. The Council’s review of its small land sales policy delayed progress between June 2018 and April 2019. However Ms X delayed progress between June 2019 and November 2019. Negotiations between the parties and sourcing an external surveyor caused delay from January 2020 onwards.
44. While I appreciate the process took longer than Ms X would have liked, I do not find the delay was the fault of the Council alone. I do however recognise the Council was responsible for the substantive delay before January 2020.
45. I note the Council was placed under special measures during the sale. However I do not consider this matter delayed the sale. The evidence provided shows the negotiations has stalled by this point and so I do not find this caused extra delay.

Surveyor Costs

46. The cost of a surveyor increased significantly during the time Ms X was pursuing the sale due to the Council requiring an external valuation. Ms X was not informed an external valuation would be required when she decided to continue with the purchase in November 2019. The Council should have told her the cost of a surveyor would likely be higher than first quoted. The failure to do so meant Ms X could not make an informed decision about the costs she would incur.
47. However I note Ms X was told an external valuation was necessary in January 2020 and the cost would be £1250. In April 2020 she decided to proceed with the sale. So I consider that, on the balance of probabilities, Ms X would have continued with the sale even if she had been aware the costs would be higher than first quoted. Therefore there are not grounds to recommend the Council refund the advertising costs paid by Ms X.
48. The Council’s reply to Ms X’s stage two complaints offered to cap the cost of the surveyor costs at £500, if she wished to complete the sale. I consider the Council’s offer suitably addresses the injustice claimed by Ms X, if she had chosen to complete the sale.

DFG

49. The purposes for which a DFG can be used are set out in legislation referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14. It does not allow a DFG to be used to buy land. This means the Council cannot approve DFG funding to Ms X for the purpose of buying the land.

Complaint

50. The Council did not tell Ms X how to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints process in its stage one complaint response. This is fault which frustrated Ms X’s attempts to escalate her complaint.
51. The Council exceeded its timescale for replying to Ms X’s stage two complaint. This is fault which caused frustration and uncertainty.
52. The delay by the Council in replying to Ms X’s stage two complaint means the goodwill gesture to cap surveyor costs was not made until August 2023, when Ms X was no longer able to buy the land. If the Council had considered her complaint earlier, Ms X may have been in position to complete the sale. Therefore I consider the delay by the Council has caused Ms X uncertainty, which is an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed Action

53. Within one month of my final decision the Council should:
• Apologise to Ms X for the fault I have found. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

• Pay Ms X £150 in recognition of the injustice caused to her by the identified fault
• Send a memo to all complaint handling staff reminding them stage one complaint responses should include details on how to escalate a complaint to the second stage of its process.
2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

55. I find fault causing injustice. The Council have agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman