Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to adequately respond to the complainant’s concerns about her neighbour’s conservatory. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Some parts of the complaint are late, we cannot investigate concerns about the Council’s management of its social housing, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the court remedy provided in the Right-to-Buy process to settle the dispute about the boundary position.

The complaint

1. The complainant, a Council tenant whom I refer to as Miss X, says the Council failed to adequately respond to the problems which have arisen since her neighbour (also a Council tenant) erected a conservatory in 2011. Miss X complained:
• The conservatory breaches Planning and Building Control requirements.
• The conservatory encroaches over her boundary, and this is now preventing her from progressing with the purchase of her property under the Right to Buy (RTB) process.
• The poor construction of the conservatory has allowed rats to nest underneath it and travel through her garden, and the neighbour is unable to clean or maintain the structure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint and photographs submitted by Miss X to the Ombudsman. The Council has provided copies of its complaint correspondence with Miss X.
7. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I appreciate Miss X is frustrated with the problems which have arisen following the construction of the conservatory. But the restrictions detailed in paragraphs 3 to 5 above apply to the issues raised in her complaint, so the Ombudsman cannot pursue them further.
9. Firstly, the conservatory was built in 2011 and the Council responded to Miss X’s formal complaint about it in 2015. So, the 12-month time restriction is relevant here. I see no reasons why Miss X was prevented from contacting the Ombudsman sooner if she felt the conservatory contravened Planning or Building Control laws. The complaint is therefore late, and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion to consider these matters now.
10. Furthermore, we have no power to consider any parts of the complaint about how the Council has managed its properties or tenancies. So, we cannot investigate the way the Council has responded, in its role as landlord, to the ongoing problems related to rat infestations and maintenance of the conservatory. I understand Miss X may have already contacted the Housing Ombudsman about these issues.
11. Finally, under Section 181 of the Housing Act 1985, the County Court has wide discretion to decide any question arising from the provisions of the RTB scheme. I see no reasons why Miss X should not be expected to use this legal remedy if there is a dispute with the Council about the boundary position, so the Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the issues she raises are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction for the reasons explained above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman