Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with matters relating to a collapsed retaining wall on the complainant’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X, complains about how the Council has dealt with matters relating to a collapsed retaining wall at the front of her property. Miss X says the Council has failed to comply with actions agreed after the Ombudsman carried out an investigation in 2022, and that the Council has colluded with a contractor about charges relating to concrete blocks in place outsider her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A retaining wall at the front of Miss X’s and her neighbours’ properties collapsed in 2021. Miss X appointed a contractor, who attended the site and placed concrete blocks on the path outside her property to make the area safe from further collapse. Miss X found that she was having problems completing the work as her neighbours had not fully completed repairs to their walls. Miss X also had issues with the service provided by the contractor she appointed.
7. We investigated a complaint from Miss X in 2022. We found fault with the information it provided to Miss X and with the way it considered enforcement action against her neighbours. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a remedy payment to her and to carry out a further inspection of her neighbour’s wall and decide if it complied with an enforcement notice it issued.
8. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to comply with the agreed actions from our previous investigation. This is because there is no evidence of fault. The Council wrote to Miss X apologising for the fault we identified and offered the agreed remedy payment. The Council carried out a further inspection of her neighbour’s wall taking photographs and assessing the work carried out. It concluded that the enforcement notice had been complied with and outlined its rationale for reaching that conclusion. We cannot question the merits of the Council’s conclusion as there is no evidence of fault in how the conclusion was reached.
9. Miss X has been in dispute with the contractor she appointed in 2021, and in early 2023 the contractor informed the Council that Miss X had asked for the concrete blocks from the front of her garden to be removed. The Council says it intervened as it considered the removal of the blocks could place members of public using the highway in front of her house at risk. The Council says it intends to recharge Miss X for the concrete blocks when the work to her wall is completed and the blocks have been removed.
10. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s recent involvement regarding the concrete blocks outside her home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has fully explained to Miss X why it has become involved, and why it considers that the concrete blocks must stay until work to repair Miss X’s wall is complete. This is a decision it is entitled to make and there is no evidence that the Council is colluding with the contractor.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman