Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to maintain its properties and allowed an area to fall into disrepair. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the condition of Council owned properties in the area that he lived. He said the Council was not maintaining the properties properly. He said the properties were being damaged by overgrown plants and that these plants had the potential to damage his own property. He said the Council had not addressed graffiti or fly-tipping in the area. He said there was also a problem with rats. He said the state of the local area was affecting his mental health.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council wrote to Mr X and explained it had bought the properties for future development. It said the development of the area was reliant on Council budgets. It said it had:
• Made the properties safe and secure. It said it completed monthly checks to ensure the ongoing security of the properties.
• Removed overgrown plants from the properties neighbouring Mr X.
• Addressed the problem of rats in the properties it owned. It said private owners might need to take their own action.
• Removed graffiti as necessary. However, it acknowledged graffiti was an ongoing issue, and the Council had to consider how to deal with it in line with limited budgets.
• Asked Mr X to report any fly tipping, so it could then investigate and remove. It said fly tipping was a difficult problem to address in the borough as it could occur at any time and at any location.
6. We will not investigate this complaint. That is because the Council has confirmed it is actively overseeing the condition of the properties where Mr X lives. It has taken steps to address maintenance issues. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
7. Mr X is concerned about the potential for future damage to his property. If Mr X’s property was damaged, it would be appropriate for him to pursue a claim through the Council’s insurance or the courts. That is because the court is the only body which would be able to decide liability and negligence issues.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman