Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to address the problem caused by an empty property next to one he owns. This is because old events dating from 2012 fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and, with regard to the current situation, because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council should have taken action earlier to bring back into use the empty property next to the property he owns. He says the empty property has caused him and his tenant problems and that the Council should compulsorily purchase it or force the owner to bring it back into use.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B owns a property which he rents out. His property is next door to a property which has been empty since 2012 and which has caused problems for him and his tenants over the years.
6. In June 2019 Mr B complained to the Council about its lack of action in relation to the empty property. Mr B said despite being told by the Council back in 2013 that it could not do anything, he said it could have taken enforcement action then to have brought it back into use by employing one of a number of different processes, including Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) and Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMO).
7. The Council responded by explaining that over the years it had dealt with the property and the owner by way of legal notice, direct contact with the owner to discuss their intentions about bringing the property back into use and in offering to buy the property from the owner. It explained that its current preferred choice of action is to use its Enforced Sales Procedure (ESP). It concluded that while it was sympathetic to the concerns Mr B had raised it did not find fault with the action it had taken to try and resolve the situation.

Assessment

8. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 2 applies to Mr B’s claim of delayed Council action and events which occurred prior to the 12-month time limit. Mr B says the time restriction should not apply because it was only recently that he found out that he had been misled about what action the Council could take. However, he could have made a complaint about the lack of action earlier and I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to consider past events now.
9. With regard to the Council’s current actions, it has told Mr B of its planned use of the ESP. Mr B is correct to say that this procedure can only be used when the owner has an outstanding debt. The Council has explained it will not take enforcement action if there is no debt and the property meets an acceptable standard. While I understand this decision is disappointing for Mr B, and that he may desire a different course of action from the Council, it is not open to the Ombudsman to review the merits of properly made Council decisions or to propose that it follow a different course of action. It is not illegal to own an empty property and the use of enforcement measures like CPOs and EDMOs are not mandatory.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because old events dating from 2012 fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and, with regard to the current situation, because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman