Summary: Mrs Z complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council refused to let Ms X carry out building work to her own property, incorrectly carried out a tendering process for the works and was then disorganised in how it subsequently billed her for the costs it incurred. Mrs Z says this has left Ms X with debt she cannot afford. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council:
1. refused to let Ms X carry out the works to her property herself;
2. failed to carry out the tendering process correctly for works on Ms X’s property; and
3. was disorganised in how it billed Ms X for the amounts it says she owes.
2. Mrs Z says Ms X has been left with a debt she cannot repay and she has been put through a lot of stress and anxiety. Mrs Z says she too has been put through a lot of stress helping Ms X to deal with these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mrs Z and considered the information she sent me.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided. This included correspondence with Ms X and Mrs Z and their MP, court orders, invoices sent to Ms X, tender documents for the work to make the property safe and details of how the Council assessed the tenders submitted.
8. I have written to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Building Act 1984

9. Section 77 of the Building Act 1984 states that if it appears to a council that a building is dangerous, it can apply to the magistrates’ court which can make an order requiring the owner of the building to:
• carry out the necessary work to make the building safe; or
• demolish the building and remove any rubbish resulting from the demolition.
10. If the owner of the building fails to carry out the work in the timescales specified by the courts, the council can carry out the work itself and recover the expenses reasonably incurred.

What happened

11. In 2012, the police contacted the Council and said render had fallen to the pavement from a property owned by Ms X. The Council inspected the property and found evidence of fallen pieces of pointing, projecting stonework and a large crack on the gable end.
12. The Council contacted Ms X who said the property had been repossessed and she would contact the holding company. The holding company inspected the building and erected scaffolding.
13. Later in 2012, the property was returned by the holding company to Ms X. In December 2012, the scaffolding company removed the scaffolding after non-payment by Ms X.
14. The Council and its consulting engineer met on site and decided scaffolding was not required if a fence was erected to protect members of the public from falling masonry. The engineer spoke to Ms X’s partner who said he would make the property safe at the beginning of 2013. The Council put up the fence.
15. The Council carried out inspections in April and July 2013 but found the property had not been made safe. The fence therefore remained in place.
16. In March 2015, the engineer wrote to Ms X to confirm the remedial works had not been carried out. The letter confirmed the costs of the fencing would continue to be charged to Ms X until she replaced it with her own adequate fencing, or she carried out the necessary repairs. The letter went on to say that the gable wall was moving and that substantial remedial works were needed to make it safe. The letter said if Ms X did not arrange for the works to be completed, the Council would either demolish the building or arrange to have the works carried out and charge the costs to Ms X.
17. Ms X did not arrange for the work to be carried out. Therefore, the Council applied to court to carry out the required work to the property under section 77 of the Building Act 1984. In February 2016, the court ordered that Ms X should either demolish or carry out the work required to make the property safe by 9 March 2016. The court also ordered Ms X to pay court costs of £225.
18. Ms X failed to carry out the works by 9 March 2016 or to pay the court costs.
19. In April 2016, the Council wrote to Ms X and said that it would now “look at the estimated cost of correcting the danger in your property and you will be charged for this work pursuant to powers under section 77 of the Building Act 1084”.
20. In 2017, the Council appointed an engineer to provide a detailed specification and tender drawings to enable the Council to go out to tender for the works required to make the building safe.
21. In February 2018, the Council also contacted Ms X on a number of occasions to gain access to the building. These efforts proved unsuccessful. Therefore, the Council applied to the magistrates’ court for a warrant of entry for the property. The court awarded the Council a warrant of entry and costs of £300 against Ms X.
22. In March 2018, following a tender process, the Council awarded the contract to a contractor.
23. The contractor carried out the remedial work at a cost of £19,522.
24. During this period, the Council had sent Ms X several invoices for work carried out and paid for by the Council. Ms X did not pay any of these. Therefore, at the end of 2018, the Council sent her an invoice which consolidated all the amounts she owed. This came to £47,072.71.
25. The Council was informed by its own legal department that this invoice incorrectly included VAT. The Council then sent Ms X a second bill without VAT which totalled £39,315.43.
26. The consolidated invoice specified costs for fencing from 2013, engineering consultancy and site visit fees, technical and design services and court fees.
27. Ms X was unhappy with the amount the Council had charged her for the work and complained. She offered to pay back the amount she owed at £10 a week. The Council refused this offer. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Council refused to let Ms X carry out the works to the property herself

28. When the police informed the Council Ms X’s property was in a potentially dangerous state of repair, the Council requested Ms X carry out work to make it safe. When she failed to do so, it erected fencing and requested a civil engineer assess the building and determine the work required to make it safe. The Council then gave Ms X an opportunity to carry out the necessary works.
29. Ms X did not carry out the work and so the Council applied to the court for an order to carry out the work itself. The court issued the Council with the order giving it the power to carry out the works required to make the property safe if Ms X did not arrange for the work to be completed within set timescales. It was open to Ms X to put her case to the court and to argue against the Council’s application for the order. The court’s decision is binding on all parties. In addition, the Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint about what happened in court. I cannot investigate this matter any further.

Council failed to carry out the tender process properly

30. The court order stated if Ms X did not complete the works, the Council could arrange for them to be carried out. The Council did this through the tendering process.
31. The Council gave each firm tendering for the work the same information and asked them to respond to the same questions. A number of firms submitted a tender. The Council scored each tender against a set of criteria based on cost and quality of submission. Two firms scored the highest number of points on quality and the Council selected the one whose costs were the lowest. The majority of the firms costed the work at around the same figure.
32. Ms X is unhappy with the amount the Council has charged her for the works to her property. However, the Council carried out the tendering process correctly. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Council was disorganised in how it billed Ms X for the amounts she owed

33. The Council issued Ms X with invoices for works relating to the property from 2013 onwards. Ms X did not pay any of these. In 2018, the Council consolidated the various amounts owed into one invoice and issued this to Ms X explaining that it had consolidated the previous invoices.
34. The Council incorrectly charged VAT on the consolidated invoice. It therefore reissued a revised consolidated invoice for the correct amount of £39,315. These were the correct actions to take.
35. I have checked the consolidated invoice and it is consistent with the individual invoices sent to Ms X. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
36. To date, Ms X has not paid anything towards the amount she owes. The Council has refused her offer to pay the amount back by £10 a week. This is a decision it is entitled to make. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman