Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not notifying him before removing part of his damaged wall, and its decision on which part to remove. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X has a property with a wall at the front, bordering the public pavement. In mid‑2024 a car hit it. Mr X organised with his insurers for the wall to be repaired by October 2024. The Council received a report from a member of the public about the wall and an officer visited in early October 2024. They assessed the wall as an immediate danger to the public. The Council’s contractor removed part of the wall the next day.
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. did not make sufficient attempts to contact him about the wall before doing the works;
2. wrongly removed a part of the wall which was structurally sound;
3. failed to remove about one metre of the wall which was loose and should have been removed;
4. failed to give proof the section of wall removed was a danger to the public;
5. does not want to admit its contractor removed the wrong part of the wall.
3. Mr X wants the Council to rebuild the wall.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
5. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, online images and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Councils have discretionary powers under the Building Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’) to make safe or remove a structure they consider poses an immediate danger to public safety. It is for its officers to decide what action to take, if any.
8. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
9. In response to a report about Mr X’s wall from a member of the public, the Council sent an officer to assess it. The officer judged a section of the wall to be unsafe, posing an immediate public safety risk, and requiring removal. They left a calling card at Mr X’s property but could not speak to anyone there. The next day, the officer attended the property again but could not contact the occupant or owner. The Council’s contractor removed the part of the wall assessed as dangerous.
10. Section 78 of the 1984 Act says council officers, before using their powers to do works, shall give notice of the intended works to the owner and occupier ‘if it is reasonably practicable to do so’. Officers twice sought to speak to someone at the property without success. They explained they could not use information about the property’s owner or occupier collected by another part of the Council for a different purpose, such as council tax. The 1984 Act does not insist on councils notifying an owner and occupier by saying they ‘must’ do so. The Act balances prior notification against circumstances where there is an immediate need to protect the public from structures assessed as dangerous. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here in how it dealt with the notification aspect of the 1984 Act to warrant an investigation.
11. In respect of the works, officers followed their process to gather information and assess the wall. They were satisfied the works done were necessary to fulfil their duty to protect public safety. It was for officers to use their professional judgement to determine whether and what works were required. We note Mr X considers one part of the wall the Council should have removed was not taken down and believes contractors took the other longer length of wall in error, which the Council has denied. While we recognise Mr X does not accept the Council’s evidence for the need for the work it did, officers gave that evidence to him in response to his concerns and complaint. If Mr X believes part of his wall remains dangerous, it would be for him as its owner to remove that risk, if he has not already done so. There is not enough evidence of Council fault here to justify us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. We understand Mr X’s insurer’s survey found the wall the Council removed was safe, contradicting the officer’s view. We are not building works surveyors so could not resolve this disagreement. Only a court would have or be able to gather the necessary expertise to rule on such a dispute. If Mr X considers his insurer’s view should be preferred over the Council’s assessment of his wall, that is a case he would need to put before the courts to get a ruling. He may wish to get independent legal advice before pursuing that route.
13. We note the result Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to rebuild his wall. We cannot order a council to do or fund those works. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman