The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters relating to land the complainants bought from the Council some years ago. This is because it falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and the availability of a court remedy against the Council which we would reasonably expect them to use.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs X complain about matters relating to land they purchased from the Council a number of years ago and particularly a boundary dispute with neighbouring landowners and the existence of a wayleave for a power cable.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Over the years, since Mr and Mrs X purchased land from the Council, the Council and its agents have addressed various issues the complainants have raised relating to the purchase.
More recently, Mr and Mrs X have raised matters relating to a boundary dispute with neighbours and the existence of a wayleave (a contract between the owner/occupier of land and a third party which gives the third party rights of access to install power cables and equipment).
The Council has advised Mr and Mrs X that the boundary dispute is a matter between the two parties and that as it has no legal interest in any of the land, it has no role in determining the boundary or mediating an agreement. It has also told them it has no record of a wayleave but that as this relates to information available at the time of sale, they may want to discuss the matter further with their solicitor who acted for them at the time of the sale.
The restrictions highlighted at paragraphs 3 and 4 apply to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. Past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time as we would reasonably have expected the complainants to have complained to us sooner. Moreover, it is also outside our jurisdiction due to the availability of a court remedy against the Council which we would reasonably expect them to use.
While I note the Council’s acknowledgement and apology that its communications with Mr and Mrs X have not always been timely or comprehensive, we will not investigate this matter when we are not investigating any substantive issues.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because it falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and the availability of a court remedy against the Council which we would reasonably expect them to use.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman