Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint about a statutory nuisance. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council had failed to properly investigate her concerns about the damage an adjoining property had caused to her home. She said the adjoining property had rooftiles that were missing or damaged. She said this had allowed water to penetrate her property which had resulted in damp and mould. She said the dampness was a statutory nuisance as it was affecting her and her family’s health.
2. Mrs X also said the Council delayed in completing its investigation into the nuisance and responding to her complaints. She is dissatisfied with the Council’s overall communication and complaint response, which she said does not answer the questions she has asked.
3. Mrs X said the Council’s inactions has resulted in damage to her property. She said it has also affected her physical, mental and emotional health. She wants a formal apology from the Council and it to ensure her neighbours roof is fixed. She also wants financial compensation for damage caused to her property and for how the Council has responded to her concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating,
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X contacted the Council in November 2021 about an adjoining property. The Council’s complaint response indicates that an Environmental Health Officer responded the same day.
9. The Council completed site visits to both Mrs X’s and the adjoining property. As part of the site visit, it internally inspected the area where there were missing roof tiles. It completed a further visit when it was raining. The Council decided there was no evidence the adjoining property had caused any damp, water staining or water leaks to Mrs X’s property. It did not assess defects with the property were causing a statutory nuisance to Mrs X.
10. Although Mrs X might disagree, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision where there is no evidence of fault in how it was made. The Council took appropriate steps to investigate Mrs X’s concerns including internal and external inspections. It reached its own opinion and set out its reasons for this. The Council has confirmed it has no authority to direct the neighbour to complete repairs to the roof. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s concerns, therefore we will not investigate this further.
11. At a site visit, the Council identified the adjoining property’s gutters were defective. The Council did not assess the defective drainage as causing Mrs X a statutory nuisance. However, it asked the property owner to complete repairs under the Building Act 1984. When the owner did not complete the agreed repairs, the Council served a notice under the Building Act 1984. The Council has confirmed to Mrs X it can take this action under the Building Act, despite it not identifying a statutory nuisance because the law requires properties to have satisfactory drainage.
12. Mrs X is unhappy about the length of time the Council took to investigate her concerns and ensure remedial work was completed. The Council’s complaint response shows an Environmental Health Officer completed a site visit within a fortnight of her initial complaint; it then completed further site visits and contacted the adjoining property’s owner. It issued the notice for the adjoining property owner to complete remedial work within four weeks of identifying the issue with the guttering. The works were completed as of March 2022. There is insufficient evidence of delay in how the Council responded to Mrs X’s concern, and as the remedial work is now complete, no outstanding injustice. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint further.
13. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for any delay in its complaint handling. It has also apologised for issues in communication, such as:
• the Council’s acknowledgement email that led Mrs X to believe Environmental Health would complete its investigation in five working-days, and
• for not explaining the Council would give her neighbour the opportunity to complete remedial work before it intervened further.
14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s complaint handling and communication further. The Council’s apology is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused to Mrs X therefore there is nothing further investigation would achieve.
15. Mrs X wants the Council to provide a financial remedy for any damage caused to her property and belongings. Mrs X should seek legal advice on how to pursue and damages claims.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman