London Borough of Enfield (19 005 886)

Category : Housing > Private housing

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 20 Nov 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his parents who live next to a property that he believes to be empty and in poor condition. We uphold the complaint finding the Council has not adequately considered whether the property is empty and so should engage its empty homes approach. It has also provided poor customer service at times. This has caused distress to Mr B’s parents and another neighbour who supports his complaint. It has also caused him unnecessary time, trouble and frustration. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement we set out the action it agrees to take to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

  1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr B’. He complains on behalf of his parents whom I will call ‘Mr & Mrs C’. His complaint concerns the condition of a property next door to Mr and Mrs C. Mr B receives support for his complaint from someone I will call ‘Ms D’ who lives on the opposite side of the house at the centre of this complaint.
  2. Mr B’s complaint is the Council:
  • has failed to take enforcement action in respect of the property next to his parents’ home, which he says is unoccupied and in poor condition;
  • has failed to deal with his communications about this matter properly; in particular by failing to follow its policy around empty homes which should involve it speaking to neighbours;
  • has shown poor customer service at times when dealing with his enquiries and complaints.
  1. Mr B says as a result, Mr and Mrs C suffer negative consequences from living next door to an empty home. It is unsightly due to its condition. They fear it may contain multiple safety hazards and be a source of infestation for rats or squirrels. For several years, Mr and Mrs C also received reduced daylight into their garden due to the neighbouring property having an overgrown garden. Ms D has similar concerns about the property’s appearance and condition. Mr B also says delays and poor communications have caused him unnecessary frustration and put him to unnecessary time and trouble making his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  4. 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

  1. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:
  • Mr B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided, including that contained in emails or telephone conversations;
  • emails provided in support of Mr B’s complaint by Ms D;
  • information provided by the Council in response to written enquiries;
  • relevant Council policy and law as referred to in the text below;
  • comments made by Mr B, Ms D and the Council on a draft decision statement setting out my proposed findings.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law

  1. Local authorities have various powers to act when receiving complaints homes are unoccupied and/or in poor condition. Some of these powers refer to actions the Council can take if a property causes a nuisance to neighbours, becomes a source of anti-social behaviour or has safety hazards. Other powers support the re-use of empty homes for housing. Of potential relevance to this complaint, I note the following:
  • Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Council has the power to serve a notice on owners who fail to maintain their property. A notice can require an owner to tidy up land; for example, to cut back overgrown foliage or remove waste. It deals with the external condition or appearance of a property.
  • Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985. This gives the power to the Council to take legal possession of a property from its existing owner through a compulsory purchase order (CPO). For which the owner is later compensated. Before the Council can use this power, it must show that it has tried other measures to bring the property back in to use and has a plan for its re-use and management.
  • Section 132 of the Housing Act 2004. This gives the power for the Council to obtain an Empty Dwelling Management Order (EDMO) to take over a property and repair it. It can then let and manage it on behalf of the landlord for up to seven years with its costs recouped from the rental income. A property must have been empty for over two years and a focal point for anti-social behaviour for the Council to use this power.
  • The Local Government Finance Act 2012. This gives the Council the power to charge an “empty home premium” on a property that has been “unoccupied and substantially unfurnished” for over two years. The premium can be up to 100% of the annual council tax bill.
  • The Building Act 1984. Various sections of this Act allow the Council to serve notices on building owners, where the condition of a building is dangerous or dilapidated. Other sections allow the Council to act to demolish structures or repair defects and bill the owner for the work.
  • The Housing Act 2004. Introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. This identifies housing defects and classifies them according to the risk posed to the occupier. A Council can serve notice on a housing owner to remedy such defects. The Council also has the power to inspect a property for hazards on giving 24-hour notice. If the Council cannot gain access it can apply to the Magistrates Court for a warrant which may allow it to force entry.
  • The Public Health Act 1961 & the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949. These Acts contain clauses which can require owners to remove waste which harbours rats or other pests.

Relevant Policy

  1. The Council publishes a “Private Sector Empty Homes Approach” which references the above legislation. It says the Council wants to bring back into use as many privately owned homes as it can to “make an important and vital contribution to local affordable housing supply”. It also aims to “reduce blight and nuisance” caused by empty properties.
  2. The policy notes there is no legal definition of an empty home. But the Council cites Government advice from 2003 contained in guidance “Empty Property – unlocking the potential” which defined an empty property as one:
  • unoccupied for six months or more;
  • occupied but where the space is capable of better use;
  • which has no ‘reasonable prospect’ of being brought back into use by the owner working alone.
  1. The 2003 guidance says, “a property does not need to be used all of the time to be ‘occupied’. Properties that are used infrequently, such as a second home or a holiday home are not covered in this guidance”.
  2. The Council says its approach will concentrate on any house “which has been empty for six months or more”. The Council says it will prioritise its approach towards empty homes considered “detrimental to the neighbourhood”. It gives examples as being those properties which because of dereliction might attract vermin; be at risk of squatting; become a focus for anti-social behaviour or littering.
  3. The Council policy has three strands. First it will try and identify empty homes in the Borough. The Council can use various resources including its council tax database and land registry records. It also recommends “contacting neighbours” as a source of information.
  4. Second, it will aim to give advice and support to owners of empty homes to help bring them back into use. It describes various incentives the Council offers to owners. For example, options for the Council to lease the property or signposting towards financial support for repairs. It also explains the Council can impose the council tax empty homes premium on empty properties.
  5. Third, it says the Council will use enforcement action “as a last resort” to bring empty homes into use, when it has exhausted voluntary processes. The Council says it can seek a CPO where it believes there will be “housing gain” in doing so or “for the purpose of improving the social environment or economic well-being of their area”.
  6. The Council has a dedicated Empty Property Team responsible for implementing this policy approach.

Chronology

  1. The first record the Council has of contact about the property at the crux of this complaint, dates from October 2014. It says it received an anonymous report about the property. The Council visited and tried to contact the owner. It recorded its understanding the house was a “long-term empty property” and that it had disrepair (although it did not specify what that was).
  2. There is no record the owner engaged with the Council. The Council says it next visited the property in June 2015 but took no further action saying there was “uncertainty over occupation”.
  3. In August 2017, the Council considered further complaints about the condition of the property. Its Environmental Health service served a notice under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act requiring the owner remove waste and cut back vegetation from the front of the property. The Council says the owner complied with this notice.
  4. In June 2018, the Council considered further complaints about the condition of the property. Its Environmental Health Service visited Mr C. It recorded: “The rear garden was literally like a forest with overgrown trees and leaves on the ground. It did not have long grass and thistles, etc. Same with the front garden. There was no putrescent waste, no evidence of rats, no public health issues.” Consequently, the Environmental Health Service referred the case to the Planning Service to consider if it should serve notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act. At this time, a Planning Enforcement Officer, ‘Officer X’ became involved.
  5. By now Mr B had agreed to help his parents to try and resolve issues with the neighbouring property. Officer X met with Mr B and discussed potential options for tackling the condition of the property including serving the owner with a Section 215 notice or pursuing a CPO. By November 2018 it had decided not to pursue these options as it considered the owner had made the outside appearance of the property satisfactory. The Council noted some delay in the owner arranging for the rear garden clearance. But it also noted the property lies in a conservation area and so tree felling could not begin without a specific planning consent. It allowed some time for that.
  6. By this time Mr B had made a complaint to the Council about its approach towards the condition of the property. Mr B received what the Council described as a reply to a ‘pre-complaint’ from a senior planning officer who had considered the case for planning enforcement. In December 2018, he subsequently received a reply from the Council’s corporate complaint team at Stage 1 of the Council’s complaint procedure. This defended the services’ actions in response to reports about the condition of the property. But that reply acknowledged “there were occasions where officers [within the planning service] have not responded and acted on telephone calls and correspondence”. The Council apologised for this. The reply also noted that Officer X had now left the authority.
  7. Mr B remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and escalated his complaint. The Council asked a different senior planning officer to investigate and he met with Mr B and Ms D in January 2019. The senior planning officer sent Mr B a note of the meeting and recorded the concerns raised about the condition of the property, which I summarise as follows:
  • First, its visual appearance. The house was not painted; had no satisfactory fence; the owner left items abandoned outside. It was unsightly and out of keeping with the rest of the road.
  • Second, it represented a health and safety hazard. Neighbours suspected it had an infestation of squirrels, that it contained a lot of clutter and had asbestos in the garage. It was a potential fire hazard.
  1. Mr B also pointed out his dissatisfaction with how the Council had dealt with his complaint up to now.
  2. The senior officer agreed to enquire with various council services including planning enforcement; building control and environmental health. When he did this he received a potted history of the environmental health service involvement which I have summarised at paragraphs 18 and 19. He also learnt Building Control officers had inspected the property in 2018 and saw no grounds to serve notices under the Building Act 1984. The officer passed this information on to Mr B in early March 2019. He also explained that even though the property was within a conservation area, the Council did not have additional powers available to improve its external appearance.
  3. By now the senior planning officer was also in touch with Officer Y from the Empty Property Team. He said Officer X had contacted him in 2018. Officer Y said subsequently he had spoken to the owner in January 2019 who told him the property was occupied. But he offered to investigate further. The senior planning officer also passed this information on to Mr B.
  4. In March 2019, Officer Y undertook a site visit, viewing the property from the outside only. Officer Y noted the property had undergone some recent partial repainting and a tarpaulin placed over an ‘abandoned’ car. He noted an asbestos roof to the garage, but this was intact and so not considered dangerous. He noted the garden clearance works undertaken in 2018. He received information suggesting the owner had not occupied the house for some time but was told they had now moved back in. The Officer could not complete an internal inspection to confirm this.
  5. Officer Y considered on balance the property was not lived in all the time but thought the owner may use it as a ‘second home’. He further considered there would be little merit in asking for proof of occupancy. This was because services to the property remained connected and there was evidence for energy use such as lights or a television being left on in the property. Officer Y considered the Council would have little chance of obtaining a CPO on the evidence available. Officer Y recommended instead a housing officer visit and inspect potential hazards. This was because a housing officer could require entry to the property.
  6. In May 2019 the Council provided a further reply to Mr B’s complaint. It defended the actions of its Empty Property Team and advised its understanding the owner of the property “was in the process of moving back in”. It told Mr B that a housing officer would go to the property and assess if it had any hazards. This response was also sent at Stage 1 of the Council’s complaint procedure.
  7. The request to arrange an inspection went to Officer Z, a senior housing enforcement officer. He viewed the property several times from the outside. But he resisted the suggestion he should inspect the interior. First, because the property appeared unoccupied. Second, if not, then it was the owner’s choice to live there despite the hazards and he did not consider an inspection would not achieve anything. He did not think any hazards impacted on Mr and Mrs C or Ms D. It would not achieve an improvement in the property’s external appearance. He did not think an inspection proportionate, therefore. Officer Y tried to change Officer Z’s mind but received no further reply to their emails. Officer Z has now left the Council
  8. In July and August 2019 Officer Y said that he noted more evidence of work to the outside of the property. The owner had undertaken more painting and removed piles of wood stored outside.
  9. In September 2019, the Council sent its final reply to Mr B’s complaint at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure. It said that one of its complaint officers had also viewed the property from outside. While not as “well presented” as neighbouring houses, it “did not look empty or neglected”. It said the Council had come to the view it was “extremely difficult to enforce any action/force inspection on the property due to the lack of evidence justifying these actions”. It said the Council’s inspections had found “at best” the property served as a second home. Mr B said that when he spoke to the complaint officer they had noted the owner did not put bins out for collection from the property, suggesting no one lived there.
  10. During my investigation I established the council tax service had no record of the property as unoccupied. But I was told that service had more involvement from January 2020 and I was given details of that, which I am unable to disclose to Mr B. The Council also told me it had not closed its investigation into the property.
  11. During my investigation Ms D told me that she had begun to experience a rat infestation. Her pest control contractor believed the source of the infestation lay in the property at the centre of this complaint. In July 2020 the Council made its own inspection. It said that it did not identify the neighbouring property as a source of harbourage for the rats found on Ms D’s property.

My findings

Scope of Ombudsman jurisdiction

  1. I have decided to investigate the Council’s actions in this case from June 2018. I note Mr B’s involvement in this complaint began around this time. I note he subsequently complained around November 2018 at the service he and his parents received from the Council. The Council chose to regard this complaint and then Mr B’s later complaint made early 2019 as separate. But I make no similar distinction. Because I consider what Mr B has complained about since late 2018 is the perceived inaction of the Council in response to the condition of the property next to his parents’ home. I consider the complaint best viewed therefore as a continuous sequence of events from this time. So, even if some of these events happened more than 12 months before we began our investigation it would be unfair to penalise Mr B for the Council’s decision to separate his complaints made in 2018 and 2019.
  2. However, I have not investigated the Council’s actions in the period 2014 to 2017. I have mentioned its involvement above as I consider its historical record relevant to its actions in 2018 and 2019. But I will not make any findings on the Council’s service provided before this time. This is because I consider any complaint about the Council’s service in the earlier timeframe late. And I am not aware of any special reasons that would justify me investigating its response so long after the event.

On the substance of the complaint

  1. Turning to the substance of the complaint, as I explained at paragraph 9, a complaint about an empty or neglected home can engage multiple council services. In this case I note the active involvement of five different council services since 2018 as well as its customer services who have considered Mr B’s complaint. I have decided the most practical way to investigate this complaint is therefore to consider the service provided by each in turn.

The Empty Homes Service

  1. I consider it sensible to begin with this service as it has oversight of all the relevant legislation in this area. Further, it is responsible for fulfilling the Council’s overall policy objectives towards empty homes as explained in its ‘Empty Homes Approach’.
  2. I note that in its policy the Council suggests it will rely on a definition of an empty home contained in 2003 Government guidance. This suggests three possible classes of property which may be considered ‘empty’. To meet one of those definitions the Council will have to consider both whether it is occupied and its condition.
  3. I consider further support for this approach can be found in the more recent definition used in the Local Government Finance Act which explains when a local authority can charge an ‘empty homes premium’. This imposes two tests. First a property must be ‘unoccupied’. Second, a property must also be “substantially unfurnished”. Government guidance on applying the premium says if a property is substantially unfurnished then it is “unlikely to be occupied or capable of occupation”. So, this definition too encourages the Council to consider if an empty home is in a condition where it can be lived in.
  4. The guidance does not go on to explain if a Council can impose a premium on a furnished property incapable of occupation for other reasons; for example, because of dilapidation or dereliction. However, I consider this is because such properties may engage other parts of the council tax scheme (for example, derelict properties are removed from the council tax list). So, I consider for its ‘empty homes’ policy approach (which encompasses far more than the empty homes premium) the Council can adopt a wider definition. It can consider a property empty if it is both unoccupied and substantially unfurnished or incapable of occupation for any other reason.
  5. I do not consider the Council could properly treat as an ‘empty home’ one that is unoccupied but capable of occupation; i.e. substantially furnished with all the essentials of living or in a state fit for habitation. For example, one where the owner chooses to spend most time elsewhere and so treats the property as a second home.
  6. In effect therefore the Council must ask two questions when it receives a report about a potential “empty home”. First, is it being lived in or has it been lived in for the last six months? Second, is it capable of occupation? If the answer to either is yes, then consideration under its empty homes approach will not be appropriate.
  7. I find that during 2019 the Council’s empty homes service tried to grapple with both these questions. On the first question its officers have evidence to suggest the property is not lived in. First, there is the long history of reports about its condition. These have never identified anyone living there. Second, there are the first-hand reports of Mr and Mrs C and Ms D who report the owner not living there. Third, there is the evidence gathered by Officer Y on his visit in March 2019 which also suggested no-one had lived there for some time. Against this the Council have statements from the owner suggesting they were ‘moving back in’ but have no proof of occupation such as household bills and so on. However, on balance it appears officers more inclined to find the property not lived in.
  8. I do not criticise the Council for not having spoken further to Mr and Mrs C or Ms D in reaching its judgment. I disagree with Mr B that it was under an onus to do so. I accept there is a role for neighbours in helping the Council come to a view on whether a property may be empty. But I consider the views of neighbours in this case known to the Council and taken account of. I find the judgment on whether the property is empty, rests more on if it is capable of occupation than whether it is lived in.
  9. It is this second question the Council has found more difficult to answer. The Council has never gained access to the property. Mr B and Ms D reported the owner storing items there, but it does not know if it is substantially unfurnished or incapable of occupation for any other reason.
  10. I do not consider the Council has done all it might reasonably do to answer this question. First, I note it has not engaged with the owner of the property to try and arrange a voluntary inspection of the property’s interior. Its officers believe it may contain hazards. Their comments and actions imply they think it may not therefore be capable of occupation or that it may require remedial action to remedy such hazards. So, seeking to inspect the property would be consistent with the first strand of its empty homes approach which looks to identify empty properties. It would also be consistent with the second strand of the policy approach which tries to engage with owners in bringing empty properties back into use.
  11. Second, as an alternative to the voluntary approach the Council can consider powers to try and compel an inspection of the property. I find the Council considered doing this, using powers under the Housing Act 2004, but then decided against the approach. While I consider the Council may have tried harder to secure a voluntary inspection first, I cannot see this factor figured in its decision not to pursue a compulsory inspection. Instead, that did not happen because of resistance from the housing standards service.
  12. I do not consider that service offered relevant reasons not to pursue inspection. I find the Empty Homes Service advanced reasons why it considered an inspection necessary and proportionate. I find those consistent with its Empty Homes approach. I do not doubt the sincerity with which Officer Z considered such a visit disproportionate. But his reasons did not engage directly with those policy objectives. The barriers to inspection should therefore have been overcome; possibly through a more vigorous attempt to secure a voluntary inspection. But it appears the service chose instead not to pursue inspection at all, even though it believed it appropriate. That was a fault.
  13. Third, I also consider the service could have enlisted help sooner from its council tax service. That service will have an interest in knowing if the property is empty as defined by the Local Government Finance Act or a second home, as this has implications for the council tax charged. That service also has powers to make enquiries of the owner and gather information. I welcome that service is now more actively involved, but only since the beginning of 2020.
  14. I find fault therefore in the service having decided it cannot act further because it does not consider the property empty. I do not consider the Council has carried out a sufficiently thorough investigation taking account of the matters set out above. So, the conclusion the property is not ‘empty’ is not one that has taken account of all relevant considerations.
  15. I also consider the service’s view has not been clearly communicated to Mr B. This is because the Council complaint responses have sometimes blurred the questions the Council must ask to decide if a property is empty. I also note the failure of the Council’s empty homes service to contact Mr B and let him know of its involvement in the case from early 2019 and explain its role. Mr B has understandably found it confusing to deal with an array of different services and officers. He would have found it useful therefore to receive an earlier explanation of the empty homes service role. Although I stop short of making a further finding of fault here, considering these matters of best practice, which the Council can learn from in the future.
  16. I find the injustice arising from the fault at paragraph 52 is that of uncertainty. I cannot say if the Council empty homes service has scope to require the property’s greater use. Or if there is scope for the service to try and persuade the owner to do so. Without a more thorough investigation these matters cannot be satisfactorily answered. But we regard this uncertainty as a form of distress.
  17. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement I explain the action the Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Housing standards

  1. It follows from what I have said above that I consider this service at fault for the response given to the empty homes service when it asked for an inspection of the property. As I set out above, the Housing Act 2004 has relevance when it comes to the Council’s approach to empty homes. Officers with expertise in assessing housing standards may be asked by colleagues to visit in accord with the empty homes approach, which happened here. It was fault that either no inspection took place or that more effort was not made to try and ensure such an inspection took place.
  2. The injustice this caused is as I have explained already.

Building control

  1. It is unfortunate the Council has not provided a record of why, in 2018, officers did not consider there were grounds to serve a Building Act notice against the owner of the property. However, from all I have read it would not appear the property was then likely to be a dangerous structure. I have considered carefully the note of the meeting Mr B and Ms D had with the Council in early 2019. They raised several concerns about the property’s appearance including referring to roof damage allowing squirrels access. They also expressed concerns about the safety of the property. For example, that rodents could damage wiring. But this would appear to engage more with the work of housing standards officers.
  2. So, I do not find grounds to think that Building Control officers reached their judgment with fault.
  3. I also note the observation the asbestos garage roof remains intact and so there would appear no role for building control in considering this matter either.

Environmental Services

  1. I find this service kept a record of why, in 2018, it did not consider there was more it could do to act in respect of the external condition of the property. It found no evidence of any infestation that may have engaged its powers to require the owner to act. Properly it referred the concerns about the overgrown garden to planning officers, with powers in this area. I do not find fault with this service.
  2. I have gone on to note the recent reports made by Ms D that rats have entered her property. Further, that her pest control contractor identified the likely source as the property next door. I note Council environmental services have now visited and do not share this assessment. I cannot dispute that based on what I know. Consequently, I have not investigated these reports further.

Planning Enforcement

  1. I find the approach of this service reasonable and proportionate. When made aware of the condition of the property in June 2018 the Council recognised its appearance was harmful to neighbours and the street-scene. It properly explained its powers of enforcement. But the Government does not usually expect local authorities to move immediately to formal enforcement. There is no fault in the Council seeking instead to work with property owners to improve the condition of their property or land voluntarily. And the Council could not consider the most drastic action of a CPO, without attempting engagement with the owner first.
  2. That is what happened here. It is evident the informal approach led the owner, by the end of 2018, to undertake significant garden clearance. Further, that since this time they have further improved the outside of the property. The service’s intervention has therefore secured improvements for neighbours, even if this does not go as far as they would like.
  3. I appreciate the months taken for this work to complete will be a source of frustration to Mr B. Also, that before the planning service became involved his parents had the distress caused from the heavily overgrown garden. But I do not consider it unreasonable for the Council to have let informal intervention run its course. This is because it only knew about the problems with the garden from June 2018 and it had to give the owner time to gain consent to remove trees. Mr B may disagree with its approach, but that is not grounds for me to uphold a complaint as I have explained above.

Customer Service

  1. I noted above the Council’s decision to have answered Mr B’s complaint twice at Stage 1 of its policy. I consider that a flawed approach as Mr B’s complaints made in 2018 and 2019 were essentially about the same matter and followed closely from each other.
  2. I also have concerns about the ‘pre-complaint’ response Mr B received from the planning service in 2018. If Mr B expressed dissatisfaction with that service then I cannot see why the Council would not consider that a corporate complaint from the outset.
  3. These decisions have caused unnecessary frustration and put Mr B to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing his complaint. So will the poor customer service he experienced at times from the planning service which the Council acknowledged.
  4. I give some credit to the Council for the attempts made between February and May 2019 to answer Mr B’s complaint. I consider it showed good customer service for its planning manager to meet with Mr B. I note he kept in contact with Mr B and went to efforts in contacting other relevant Council services. They tried to answer Mr B’s complaint holistically. However, that does not mitigate all the injustice identified at paragraph 68.
  5. Also, once that service’s involvement ended the response to Mr B‘s complaint again became piecemeal. I draw attention again to the unfortunate dispute that arose between services about the need to try and inspect the property at the crux of this complaint. In answering Mr B’s complaint, the Council should not have left that unresolved. This too adds to Mr B’s frustration, time and trouble.

Agreed action

  1. The Council accepts the findings above. It has also told me that it is investing in training between its services to ensure better awareness of it empty homes service and those it liaises with. This is welcomed. The Council has also agreed to remedy the injustice I have identified that within 20 working days of this decision it will provide the following:
  • an apology to Mr B accepting the findings of this investigation;
  • a payment of £250 to Mr & Mrs C and a payment £250 to Ms D in recognition of the distress caused as uncertainty to them;
  • a payment of £250 to Mr B for his time and trouble pursuing this complaint;
  • a commitment to complete an investigation of the condition of the property at the crux of this complaint in line with the advice set out at paragraph 73 to 76 below.
  1. In addition, the Council has agreed to make procedural improvements. Within three months it will:
  • complete a review of its existing empty homes approach to see if it can encompass a better definition of what is an empty home and how the Council will decide this;
  • complete a review of existing liaison arrangements between the empty homes service and other services who have overlapping responsibility in this area. This will consider:
    • if the Council needs more effective protocols or procedures to identify which service area will lead when receiving service requests raising the condition of properties which may be empty or in poor condition;
    • if there are adequate management controls in place for resolving disputes between service areas where officers disagree on the approach to take;
    • if there is sufficient awareness among relevant officers in services including housing standards, planning enforcement and environmental health about the empty homes service and its policy approach.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Council will undertake a re-investigation of the property at the crux of this complaint which should seek to answer the following questions.
  • First, is it an empty home taking account of both any occupancy and its condition?
  • Second, if so, what action should the Council take in line with its empty homes approach?
  • Third, whether or not it is an empty home are there grounds for the Council take any other action in respect of its condition?

Methodology of investigation

  1. The Council will appoint a senior officer with oversight of both the housing standards and empty homes functions of the Council to oversee this re-investigation. At an early stage they will contact Mr B/Mr and Mrs C and Ms D to gain an up to date picture of their concerns about the neighbouring property to include consideration of any ongoing infestation concerns. The Council will keep in touch with Mr B and Ms D at least once every four weeks during the re-investigation to update them on progress.
  2. The investigating officer will liaise as appropriate with colleagues from environmental services, building control, planning services and council tax revenues where the input of those services may be relevant to answering any of the questions above. The re-investigation should encompass further external inspection of the property and consider the extent to which officers should try and inspect the interior of the property either through voluntary inspection or using powers under the Housing Act. The Council can take account of the impact of COVID-19 on any inspections it might undertake. For example, if this necessitates delay or limiting the number of officers who visit.

Outcome of investigation

  1. The Council will prepare a written report summarising its findings. It will provide a copy to Mr B and Ms D (redacted if appropriate to remove third party information). If it recommends taking further action in respect of the property at the crux of this complaint, then it will specify which service will take that action and by when.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council accepts this finding and has agreed action to remedy this injustice in a way that will provide a fair outcome to the complaint. Consequently, I can now complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings