Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has charged Mrs X for clearing her home. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council and Mrs X can take court action if she considers the costs unreasonable. There is not enough significant injustice from the Council putting charge on her property as she can still offer to pay in instalments.

The complaint

1. Mrs X, through a representative, complains the Council paid a company to clear her home, then passed the charge for the work to her without first telling her how much it would cost. Mrs X says the Council has now put a charge on her home, which incurs interest, and she is distressed by the size of the debt. Mrs X wants the Council to reduce the fees and agree a payment plan.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

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 sent Mrs X a notice, under s.83 of the Public Health Act 1936 (PHA), to cleanse and disinfect her home. The notice gave Mrs 14 days to comply and told her that if she did not, the Council could carry out the work itself and recover the reasonable expense from Mrs X as set out in law.
6. The notice also informed Mrs X of her rights to appeal under s290 of the PHA. The compliance period elapsed with Mrs X neither appealing the notice nor managing to clear her property. The Council then arranged for the property to be cleared. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council for clearing the property once the notice compliance period elapsed. Furthermore, if Mrs X was unhappy with the notice or the time the Council gave her to comply, she could have used her right to appeal or asked the Council for an extension.
7. The Council then sent Mrs X the bill. There is no duty on the Council to send Mrs X advanced notice of the expenses so we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for not doing so.
8. Mrs X questioned the size of the bill, and the Council sent her a breakdown and explanation of the charges. Only the courts can determine whether the charges were reasonable in line with the PHA. It would therefore be open to Mrs X to pursue legal proceedings to seek a reduction. We cannot achieve this outcome for Mrs X. While it may involve some expense, that does not automatically make court action unreasonable in relation to the size of the debt.
9. Mrs X did not pay the bill, so the Council put a land charge on her property to recover the funds when she sells her home. The Council is allowed to do so under the PHA, so we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for doing so.
10. If Mrs X wants to pay in instalments to avoid paying the interest, she is entitled to offer an arrangement with the Council. The Council does not have a duty to offer instalments before placing a land charge. If the Council and Mrs X had already come to an instalment arrangement, the law still says the Council should secure it with a land charge until all funds were recovered. So, the injustice caused by the Council placing a land charge is not significant enough to warrant investigation, nor does it amount to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in its decision to recover the costs from Mrs X and only the courts can decide whether the costs were reasonable. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice from the Council’s decision to put a land charge on her property to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman