Ombudsman Report: Land Property Services (LPS) and Land Management Committee (LMC)

This is an extract of complaints resolved by the Ombudsman Office in 2025.The Chronicle publishes a report fortnightly.

Case No. 1307

Complaint 

The complaint concerned the actions of the Land Property Services (LPS) and the Land Management Committee (LMC) in relation to an application made by a homeowner in a subsidised housing estate. The complainant wished to have her partner recognised as residing at her property so that he could use the address for immigration and residency purposes. She alleged that the application had been subjected to excessive delay, unclear decision-making, and a failure to provide meaningful reasons for the committee's refusal to approve the request. 

The case raised broader questions about the extent to which administrative bodies should exercise control over the personal and family arrangements of homeowners who live within Government-supported housing schemes. 

Background 

The complainant owned a property within a subsidised housing development. Although the property was owned on a shared-equity basis with the Government of Gibraltar, she regarded it as her family home and wished for her long-term partner to be formally recognised as living there. 

The recognition was important because the partner required proof of authorised residence at the property in order for the Department of Immigration and Home Affairs to process his residence documentation. 

The application was initially made in 2022. To support the request, the complainant and her partner submitted sworn affidavits setting out the nature of their relationship and confirming that they lived together. Despite this, the matter remained unresolved for a prolonged period. 

The couple repeatedly sought updates but were unable to obtain a clear answer as to whether the application had been approved or rejected. They were informed that further verification would be required before any decision could be taken. 

Investigation 

During the investigation, the Ombudsman examined correspondence, policy documents, internal communications and explanations provided by LPS. 

One of the most notable findings was that no clear policy existed governing applications of this nature. Although requests involving family members had arisen before, there was no transparent framework explaining the circumstances in which an unmarried partner would be recognised as part of a household. 

The Ombudsman learned that the LMC wished to verify that the couple genuinely resided together before approving the request. To achieve this objective, consideration was given to conducting a surprise visit using the Borders and Coastguard Agency. 

However, the proposed inspection never took place. 

As a result, the application remained in administrative limbo. Instead of progressing towards a decision, the case effectively stalled while officials considered courses of action that ultimately were never implemented. 

The Ombudsman regarded the absence of progress as highly problematic because it meant that the complainant was left waiting for several years without any meaningful resolution. 

Evidence reviewed during the investigation also suggested that concerns may have existed regarding the age difference between the complainant and her partner. Although these concerns were never formally stated as reasons for refusing the application, they appeared to influence discussions within the decision-making process. 

Crucially, these issues were not disclosed to the complainant at the time. 

The Ombudsman considered that individuals affected by administrative decisions should ordinarily be informed of the reasons underlying those decisions. This principle is particularly important when decisions involve family life, housing rights or personal relationships. 

Delay 

A central issue in the investigation was delay. 

The application had remained unresolved from 2022 until 2025. During this period the complainant was unable to obtain the authorisation letter required for immigration purposes. 

The Ombudsman found little justification for such an extensive delay. 

Although public authorities are entitled to verify information and conduct inquiries where appropriate, those inquiries must be completed within a reasonable timeframe. The evidence suggested that the delay stemmed largely from administrative indecision rather than complexity. 

The failure to reach a timely conclusion placed the complainant and her partner in an uncertain position. They were unable to plan their affairs confidently and had no indication of when a decision might be reached. 

The Ombudsman considered this inconsistent with principles of good administration. 

Lack of Reasons 

Another significant concern involved the absence of clear reasoning. 

Even where authorities believed additional evidence was required, the complainant was not given a comprehensive explanation of what deficiencies existed in the application. 

The Ombudsman observed that procedural fairness requires individuals to understand why an application has been delayed, refused or subjected to further scrutiny. 

Without reasons, affected persons are deprived of the opportunity to address concerns, provide additional information or challenge questionable assumptions. 

In this case, the complainant was repeatedly left uncertain about the true basis for the committee's position. 

The Ombudsman concluded that this lack of transparency contributed significantly to the unfairness experienced by the complainant. 

Family Life Considerations 

The case also prompted wider reflections regarding the balance between housing administration and personal autonomy. 

The Ombudsman recognised the legitimate public interest in preventing abuse of subsidised housing schemes. Authorities must ensure that properties are used in accordance with the rules governing their allocation and ownership. 

However, the Ombudsman questioned whether the committee's approach gave sufficient weight to the complainant's right to enjoy family life. 

Modern relationships do not always involve marriage or civil partnership. Many couples choose alternative living arrangements while nevertheless maintaining stable, long-term family relationships. 

The Ombudsman expressed concern that administrative processes should not unfairly disadvantage such couples merely because they fall outside traditional categories. 

This concern was particularly relevant where homeowners had invested substantially in their properties and regarded them as their permanent family homes. 

Outcome 

The matter was eventually resolved after the committee reconsidered the application. 

On 8 April 2025, the LMC approved the request and authorised recognition of the partner's residence at the property. 

The timing of the approval was notable because it followed notification that the couple were expecting a child. 

While the approval provided a practical resolution, the Ombudsman remained concerned that such a development should not have been necessary before a decision was reached. 

The evidence supporting the relationship had been available for years. 

Classification 

The Ombudsman found in favour of the complainant. 

The complaint regarding the decision-making process was sustained. 

The complaint regarding delay was sustained. 

The complaint regarding the failure to provide reasons was also sustained. 

These findings amounted to a determination that maladministration had occurred. 

Ombudsman's Conclusions 

The investigation highlighted significant shortcomings in transparency, consistency and timeliness. 

The Ombudsman concluded that public authorities should not leave applicants waiting years for decisions affecting family life and residency arrangements. Where concerns exist, they should be clearly explained and resolved promptly. Where evidence is required, applicants should be informed precisely what evidence is needed. 

Most importantly, individuals are entitled to know why decisions affecting them are made.