Summary: the Council failed to update the land charges register which meant Mr B was not made aware of a planning contravention notice which affected the property he purchased. An apology, payment to Mr B and procedural changes are satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to update the local land charges register which meant it did not tell him about a planning contravention notice relating to a property he purchased when it responded to a local land search from his solicitor;
• failed to offer an appropriate remedy to reflect the impact on him and the additional costs incurred.
2. Mr B says failures by the Council means he was not given the opportunity to pull out of the property purchase or offer a lower amount. Mr B says he has also experienced significant distress, inconvenience and frustration.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr B intended to buy a property and his solicitor sent the Council a land search request. At the time the Council had an open enforcement case relating to the developer’s failure to comply with conditions on the planning permission for the whole site, which included the property Mr B was looking to buy. Due to an IT failure the plotting record did not pull through the information to the land charges system. So, when the Council provided a response to the solicitor it did not include any reference to the open enforcement case.
7. Mr B completed the purchase of the property in 2022.
8. On 3 February 2023 a Council enforcement officer visited Mr B’s property and served him with an enforcement notice related to planning breaches on land within the curtilage of his property. The notice said it would take effect on 8 March. The notice apologised the Council had not previously contacted the property about the enforcement matter and said under the law it was required to serve notices on anyone with an interest in the land. The Council invited Mr B, along with the other residents affected, to a meeting on 7 February to discuss the details.
9. On 1 March Mr B told the Council he had put in an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
10. In the meantime the Council liaised with the developer’s representative about which planning permission had been implemented. The representative for the developer confirmed that on 3 March.
11. Mr B put in a letter of complaint on 8 March. Mr B said if he or his solicitor had known about the enforcement action he would not have bought the property. Mr B also said he had paid more than the true value of the property as enforcement action can affect the market value of the property and could affect his ability to sell the property in future.
12. The Council wrote to Mr B on 13 April to explain the information the developer had provided meant the Council had withdrawn the enforcement notice for Mr B’s property. The Council told Mr B it would serve new notices on the remaining parties with an interest in the land subject to the enforcement action. The Council confirmed it would not take further action on the bund area which formed part of Mr B’s property.
13. The Council then responded to the complaint on 19 April. The Council accepted due to an IT failure its response to Mr B’s land charges search did not refer to the planning contravention notice which applied to his property. The Council explained it had withdrawn the planning enforcement notice it had served and confirmed it did not intend to take further action for the breach of planning control which affected land within Mr B’s ownership. The Council said it would address the IT issues which had led to the problem. The Council said it considered the removal of the planning contravention notice suitable redress along with an apology and £500 to reflect his uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council later agreed it had wrongly said it had withdrawn the planning contravention notice when it had withdrawn the planning enforcement notice.
14. Mr B told the Council he was not satisfied with its response. Mr B said the £500 offered did not provide a suitable remedy when he had paid more than the asking price for the property. Mr B said he would not have bought the property if he had known about the enforcement notice. Mr B said he did not consider the removal of the planning enforcement notice sufficient redress as the planning contravention notice remained in place.
15. The Council responded to the complaint on 7 June. The Council said it considered the remedy offered appropriate. It reiterated it had withdrawn the planning enforcement notice. The Council suggested Mr B consider putting in a planning application to regularise the inclusion of the bund as part of his domestic curtilage given it was not included in the domestic curtilage in the plans approved as part of the planning permission.
16. Mr B again raised concerns the Council’s response. The Council reiterated its apology and offer of £500. The Council also told Mr B it had taken action to ensure the risk of a further recurrence had reduced.
17. In response to my enquiries the Council said the issue here related to information not pulling through from the planning system to the land charges operating system when an officer used copy and paste on the planning system. The Council says following this case it has issued guidance to officers and as part of the process officers will now email the land charges team to request confirmation the information has pulled through to the land charges system. The Council also intends to include that process in the induction manual.

Analysis

18. Mr B says the Council failed to update the local land charges register which meant it did not tell him about enforcement issues relating to a property he intended to buy. The Council concedes that due to an IT failure the enforcement issues which had been raised with the developer were not recorded for the specific properties affected. As a result, the Council failed to tell Mr B about the enforcement action when responding to his solicitor’s local land search. Failure to update the Council’s land charges register and to disclose the information about the enforcement issues affecting the property Mr B intended to buy is fault. That meant Mr B bought the property wrongly believing there were no outstanding enforcement issues.
19. Mr B says if he had known about the enforcement issues he would not have gone ahead with the property purchase. Mr B says even if he had gone ahead with the property purchase it is likely he would have secured the property for a reduced amount. Mr B says he initially offered £20,000 less for the property than he eventually paid and would likely have stuck to that offer had he known about the enforcement issues. Mr B therefore believes the Council is responsible for this financial loss.
20. It is not for me to decide whether and how much the existence of an enforcement case affects the value of Mr B’s property, particularly as the Council has now withdrawn the enforcement notice and confirmed it does not intend to take any action in respect of Mr B’s property. Nor can I decide whether the existence of a planning contravention notice affects the value of Mr B’s property. That is a matter for the courts. In addition, I could not say if Mr B had known about the enforcement issues he would have been able to secure the property for a lower amount as that would have been dependent on the vendor. Mr B says he would not have completed the property purchase. That is, naturally, with the benefit of hindsight and I cannot speculate now about what would have happened if Mr B had known of the enforcement issues.
21. However, I consider Mr B has some uncertainty about whether the situation could have been different had the Council told him about the enforcement issues. I also consider Mr B has suffered distress as he received an enforcement notice when he had no prior knowledge of issues with the property. Taking into account the fact the Council has removed the enforcement notice relating to Mr B’s property and confirmed it does not intend to take action against Mr B I consider the remedy the Council has offered satisfactory. I am also satisfied the action the Council has taken to ensure the same IT problems are not repeated is appropriate and should ensure similar problems do not occur in future. I therefore see no reason to make any further recommendation for remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Mr B and pay him £500.
23. The Council has already put in place a process to ensure information input into the planning system is pulled through to the land charges system.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman