Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered its powers, to deal with problems caused by disrepair in a vacant property. It did not give proper consideration to whether it should enforce a notice it served, requiring repairs to a gutter, and overlooked a power it had to potentially address two other problems. The Council has agreed to reconsider its powers to take action, and to offer a financial remedy and formal apology to the complainant.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr M.
2. Mr M complains the Council has not taken effective action to improve the condition of a derelict property, which neighbours a rental property he owns. He says the property has been left vacant and unmaintained for several years, and is attracting vermin, causing damp in his property, and creating other dangers. However, Mr M says the Council is allowing the property’s owner to avoid their responsibilities to maintain it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr M and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. The following chronology will summarise the key events relevant to this complaint. It will not include everything that happened, or the full details of all correspondence between the relevant parties.
8. Mr M owns a rental property, which forms part of a terrace. After the owner died in 2010, Mr M says the neighbouring property has remained continually vacant, and gradually falling into disrepair, which has in turn caused damage to his own property.
9. Mr M says he has been seeking the Council’s assistance with this matter since 2013. Due to the time limits on our jurisdiction, as set out in paragraph 4, I have only investigated events since October 2024, which is 12 months before Mr M complained to us. Similarly, I cannot investigate distinct events which occurred after October 2025, because they post-date Mr M’s complaint to us. However, I will refer to earlier or later events where necessary for context.
10. In September 2024 the Council received correspondence from the local MP, raising concerns about the state of the vacant property. It says, in November, it opened a new case to review the condition of the property as a “ruinous and dilapidated building”. The Council says this review “did not establish clear evidence directly linking the reported issues to defects” in the vacant property.
11. In April 2025, following reports of vermin and damp at the vacant property, the Council opened a pest control case. It visited the property and contacted Mr M. However, it says it could not confirm evidence of active infestation there, and that Mr M declined treatment in his own property because there was no evidence of any vermin activity there.
12. However, the Council did identify that damp in Mr M’s property was likely due to defective guttering at the vacant property. The Council says it had carried out checks that established the property was still registered to the deceased owner, but it contacted a member of his family, to whom I will refer as Ms J, and served a notice under section 59 of the Building Act 1984, requiring her to repair the guttering by a specified date in May.
13. Shortly before this deadline the Council spoke again to Ms J. She confirmed she was acting in relation to the property and that she would arrange the repair, but asked for an extension to the deadline, which the Council granted.
14. After repairs were made, the Council visited to inspect the work, which confirmed the guttering was still defective. The Council contacted Ms J and explained she needed to arrange further remedial work. It also discussed with her a damaged fence in the garden of the vacant property, but Ms J said the deceased owner did not own that land and was not responsible for maintaining it.
15. In June, Mr M submitted a formal complaint to the Council. He highlighted he had been reporting problems with the vacant property for 12 years, and noted other residents had also contacted the Council about it. Mr M said vermin had been seen in the property, that a window and part of the guttering looked like it may fall, a shared path between vacant property and his own was covered in algae, making it a slip hazard, that the garden (which Mr M noted was land owned by Network Rail) was overgrown, and that a fence was about to collapse.
16. Mr M said he understood probate had been granted on the vacant property, and that the Council knew the name of the executor, and that no council tax was being paid for it. Mr M highlighted the Council’s empty homes strategy, which he said it was not delivering, and asked the Council to arrange a meeting with him to discuss these matters.
17. In July, the Council contacted Ms J again to discuss the damaged fence, who said the fence had been erected by Network Rail. The Council then informed Mr M he would need to take the matter up with Network Rail, and that it could not become involved in the dispute.
18. After contacting Network Rail, Mr M told the Council it had said the fence belonged to the vacant property owner. He asked the Council to contact Ms J to arrange removal of the fence, explaining it was a safety risk to his tenant. The Council then confirmed it had related this to Ms J, but said it had no power to enforce the removal, and that it was a civil matter. The Council also said Ms J had confirmed further remedial work on the gutter had been completed.
19. Later in July Mr M contacted the Council to say the gutter was still leaking.
20. The Council replied to Mr M’s complaint in August, apologising for the delay in its response. It explained it had carried out visits to and inspections of the vacant property, but said it had not “[identified] any conditions that pose a significant risk to health or safety”, and for this reason it did not have grounds to take formal enforcement action.
21. The Council said its environmental health department could only intervene if the condition of the vacant property affected neighbouring properties, due to such issues as damp or pest infestation; and, in doing so, could only require the owner to carry out work to resolve this issue. The Council noted it had taken limited enforcement action, in relation to the gutter, but said it was restricted in taking action under its empty homes policy because the question of ownership remained unsettled.
22. The Council acknowledged there had been a cost to Mr M in maintaining his property, but said it was unable to disclose information about the ownership of the vacant property on data protection grounds. For this reason, the Council said it did not consider it would be beneficial to hold a meeting with Mr M, as he had requested. However, it assured him it would continue to investigate the property and work with relevant parties.
23. In September, Mr M contacted the Council to again report an ongoing leak from the gutter. At the Council’s request, he provided photographs of the leak, to allow Ms J to take it up with the contractor. The Council then visited the property again and confirmed the leak itself.

Back to top

Legislative background

Building Act 1984

24. Under this Act, a council may issue an enforcement notice to require an owner to address defective aspects of a property. This can include problems with drainage, under section 59, and dangerous parts of a building or structure, under section 78.

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

25. Under this act, a council has the power to issue an enforcement notice to private landowners or occupiers, requiring them to take steps to eradicate rat or mouse infestations on their land.

Section 215 notices

26. Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 provides councils with the power, in certain circumstances, to issue a s215 notice requiring land (including structures) to be cleaned up, when its condition adversely affects the amenity of the area.

Work in default

27. If the subject of any of the above notices fails to comply with its requirements, the issuing council can decide to carry out the work necessary for compliance at its own cost, and then seek to recover this from the subject. This is commonly known as ‘work in default’.

Back to top

Analysis

28. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
29. But we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
30. There are various different aspects to Mr M’s complaint. These aspects are closely interlinked, to the point where I cannot logically make separate findings on each; but for ease of understanding I will discuss each element separately, under its own sub-heading.

Ownership

31. Mr M says the vacant property has caused several different problems, including damp in his own property, vermin, overgrown vegetation, and a dangerous window and fence; and, as I have set out above, the Council has a range of different powers it can potentially use to address these types of problem. In each case, it is for the Council to use its professional judgement whether the threshold for action has been met.
32. The Council has referred, several times, to problems with establishing ownership, as being an obstacle to it taking action about the vacant property. Noting this had not stopped the Council serving the section 59 notice, I asked the Council to elaborate on this. It said:

“In April 2025, the Council carried out a Land Registry check which still showed the owners of the property as [the deceased owner]. A Council tax search detailed a forwarding address for [Ms J] ...

“Where a property forms part of a deceased person’s estate, responsibility for that property does not automatically pass to family members or occupiers. Instead, legal authority rests only with the executor or administrator once probate has been granted. Until that point, there may be no individual with confirmed legal standing to take responsibility for the property’s condition or to respond formally to Council action.

“In these circumstances, the Council must proceed with caution. Any formal enforcement action, such as the service of statutory notices, must be directed to the correct legal person or entity in order to be valid. Where probate is outstanding, or where ownership is unclear or evolving, the Council may not be in a position to confidently identify that party.

“As [Ms J] had said that she was responsible but the Council was unable to verify any of the information, the notice to repair the gutter was served on the owner and not a named individual.”

33. I acknowledge the difficulties presented by the unresolved question of ownership of the vacant property. However, and even accepting the Council did not serve the section 59 notice in Ms J’s name, the fact remains she was willing to take responsibility for the problem on receipt of the notice, and arrange remedial work (albeit which has caused its own problems). There is nothing in the Council’s records to suggest she ever questioned whether this responsibility was hers.
34. This being so, there is an obvious implication here that Ms J would have also accepted responsibility for any other issue, had the Council served a relevant notice on her. At the very least, it appears reasonable for it to try this approach. I am not persuaded the ownership factor was clearly an obstacle to progress in this case.

Section 59 notice

35. Notwithstanding the brief extension the Council granted her, Ms J acted with reasonable promptness to comply with the section 59 notice at first, with remedial work being completed sometime around late May. Unfortunately it quickly became apparent this had been ineffective, which the Council itself noted upon inspection in early June. It contacted Ms J again, who then told the Council in mid-July the contractor had returned and fixed the guttering.
36. But, again, within days Mr M reported ongoing leaks from the guttering. The Council informed Ms J of this, who, once again, said she would make arrangements for the guttering to be fixed.
37. The Council’s records show Mr M raised the leaks again in September, and that it carried out a new inspection in October. The Council contacted Ms J to discuss this, and in response, she explained there was now a new obstacle to arranging further work on the gutter (for reasons of data protection I cannot describe this in any more detail). As I understand it, at the date of writing, this still has not been resolved, and the guttering remains unrepaired.
38. On balance, I am not satisfied the Council has done as much as it could to ensure compliance with the notice. I note, in November 2025, the Council told Ms J it considered she had had enough time to fix the problem, and suggested it arrange the work itself. Ms J did not agree to this, and as far as I can see, the Council never made this suggestion again.
39. But the section 59 notice meant the Council did not actually need Ms J’s agreement. Given the original deadline for fixing the gutter was in early May, the apparently straightforward nature of the work required, and the impact of the leak on Mr M’s property, I consider it reasonable to expect the Council to have given more concerted thought to enforcing the notice.

Fence

40. Although there was some initial controversy over the ownership of the damaged fence at the rear of the vacant property, it now appears settled that this is also for the owner, or responsible person, to address.
41. The Council’s records show it informed Ms J of this in July, and “requested” she arrange the fence’s removal. But, at the same time, the Council noted the fence was a private matter, and that it had no relevant enforcement power.
42. I do not share this view. Similar to the section 59 notice, the Council has the power to serve a notice under sections 77 and 78 of the Building Act 1984 to address dangerous buildings or structures. Section 121 of the same act clarifies that this applies to “any permanent or temporary building, and … any other structure or erection of whatever kind or nature”. This very broad definition would logically include a fence.
43. And, indeed, the Council’s own website says:

“If any building or structure is considered to be in a dangerous condition, Building Control Officers are responsible for ensuring that the danger is removed to protect occupiers and the general public.”

44. Again, there is nothing here to suggest this responsibility should not apply to a fence.
45. It is not for me to make my own decision whether the fence is actually dangerous, nor that the Council should serve an enforcement notice about it. However, upon receipt of evidence the fence was dangerous, the Council should have taken steps to gather appropriate evidence about it, and then made a properly considered decision whether to take action. Again, there is nothing in the Council’s records to suggest it has done this.
46. This leads me to a related point. In his complaint to the Council, Mr M also said there was a window at the vacant property which was damaged and in danger of falling. This would also seem to potentially engage the Council’s powers under section 77-78, but I can see nothing in the Council’s records to suggest it gave any consideration to this. In fact, from what I can see, the Council overlooked this entirely.
47. I am conscious there is also nothing in Mr M’s earlier correspondence with the Council which mentions the window (at least within the period I am investigating). Taking this at face value, I appreciate why the Council may not have looked into this matter by the time Mr M made his complaint – but, once he did, the Council should have taken note of this and given it proper scrutiny.

Vermin and overgrown vegetation

48. I asked the Council to explain what consideration it had given to using its powers under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, or section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Council replied:

“In respect of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, the Council’s Pest Control service assessed the concerns raised and opened an investigation. The complainant was contacted; however, no confirmed evidence of an active infestation attributable to the property in question was identified. Furthermore, treatment for the complainant’s property was not progressed, as there was no reported pest activity within that property at the time. On this basis, the Council did not consider that the statutory threshold for action under the Act was met. 

“With regards a section 215 notice, section 215 powers are discretionary and are used where the condition of land or buildings has a demonstrable and significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. Having undertaken site visits and viewed photographs, the condition of the property did not meet this threshold. While the property may not be of a modern appearance, it was not considered to materially detract from the overall character or visual amenity of the area. As such, it was not felt the use of formal enforcement powers under Section 215 would be justified or proportionate in the circumstances.”

49. I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation on both points. It shows the Council took the proper steps to gather evidence and consider it, and that it has drawn logical conclusions on the strength of that evidence.
50. I will observe the Council’s records document a visit it made to the vacant property in 2022, in which it noted the garden was in such a state as to potentially merit enforcement action under section 215. It is unclear what, if anything, came of that, and as it is outside the period covered by my investigation I cannot give it further consideration. However, the Council is entitled to change its view, and the simple fact it took this position several years ago does not mean it must continue to do so now.

Conclusions

51. I consider the Council is at fault for the following reasons:

• it has not given proper consideration to enforcing the section 59 notice;
• it wrongly said it had no power to take enforcement action over the fallen fence, when this appears to engage its powers under section 77-78 of the Building Act; and
• it seems to have overlooked Mr M’s report of a dangerous window at the vacant property, which also appears to engage its section 77-78 powers.

52. And, while I acknowledge the difficulty presented by the unresolved question of ownership, Ms J’s willingness to engage with the Council over the section 59 notice strongly suggests it could meaningfully explore other enforcement action.
53. I am satisfied, however, there is no fault in the way the Council considers it powers under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, and section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
54. None of the fault I have identified means the situation would necessarily be significantly different for Mr M. While I have criticised the Council for not giving proper consideration to using its powers, the Council could still – legitimately – decide it is not appropriate to do so. I cannot make these decisions on the Council’s behalf.
55. Equally though, it is possible that work to improve the condition of the vacant property could have been completed, or at least arranged. This creates a significant uncertainty, which is an injustice to Mr M in its own right.
56. To remedy this, the Council should now reconsider each of the three issues I have highlighted here (the gutter, fence and window) with regard to its relevant powers. As part of this, it should take the proper steps to gather evidence, before making a decision whether it is appropriate to take enforcement action.
57. In addition to this, the Council should also write a formal letter of apology to Mr M, acknowledging that it did not give proper consideration to its powers in deciding whether to take action, and the frustration caused to him by the uncertainty this creates; and offer Mr M £300 for the same reason.

Back to top

Action

58. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• consider whether it should now take action to enforce the terms of the section 59 notice it served in April 2025, and make a proper record of its decision;
• investigate and consider whether it is appropriate to take action under its section 77-78 powers to deal with the damaged fence;
• investigate and consider whether it is appropriate to take action under its section 77-78 powers to deal with the damaged window;
• write a formal letter of apology to Mr M, acknowledging the fault I have identified here and its impact on him. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended; and
• offer to pay Mr M £300 for the same reason.

59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

60. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman