Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to its direct action in clearing her garden. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. On behalf of the complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, her representative, Mr X, says there has been poor communication between Council departments in connection with its decision to carry out works to clear Ms B’s garden for public health reasons. Mr X says it did not communicate with him consistently and it did not take account of the information he had provided about Ms B’s mental health. Mr X seeks compensation for Ms B for the way she has been treated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X, who is Ms B’s son and representative, and considered the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2008 the Council first received reports concerning the poor state of Ms B’s property. In 2013 it issued her with a formal notice under public health legislation. It explained its powers to remedy untidy properties and sought information from her about what action she would take to address the problem.
6. Over the next six years, through a variety of communication methods, including letters, emails, telephone calls, contact with Mr X, site visits and face to face meetings, the Council attempted to get Ms B to carry out the necessary work to improve the condition of her property and garden.
7. In 2017 it issued her with a section 215 notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which required her to take certain steps to remedy the condition of the land. In 2018 the Council sent a letter to Ms B advising her to undertake the required work. It warned that if she did not do so she could be prosecuted, and that the Council would carry out the work and charge her.
8. In May 2019, the Council wrote to Ms B to advise that due to non-compliance with the s215 Notice, it would carry out the works in default. These were undertaken a month later.
9. Mr X complained to the Council on Ms B’s behalf about the Council’s actions and its handling of the case. He said it had been inconsistent in its communication with him and that it had failed to take adequate account of Ms B’s mental health condition. The Council did not uphold his complaint and found that it had taken appropriate and reasonable steps to communicate with Ms B over the years and that communication with Mr X had generally not been used because it did not have Ms B’s consent to do so.
10. While the Council’s complaint response said that the Planning Department had discussed with other departments about how best to communicate with Ms B, it noted that her case highlighted the need for it to be vigilant in drawing attention to those residents with case histories and special needs.

Assessment

11. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to events which took place in the past and will not be considered now.
12. With regard to the recent action taken by the Council due to non-compliance with the s215 notice, I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. It was aware of Ms B’s health problems but had to balance this, and taking no action, with the rights of those living in the vicinity of the property.
13. Mr X says the Planning Department, the department involved with the enforcement action, did not communicate with him as other Council departments had in the past when he had dealt with his mother’s affairs and that it had sent her letters which she would not open and so she did not know in advance that the Council would be carrying out the clearance work.
14. That other departments had previously communicated with Mr X about his mother’s affairs is not disputed. However, the Council did not have Ms B’s formal consent to discuss this matter with him and she had not asked that it involve him in the discussions. The Council has said Ms B has previously read and responded to letters. Moreover, the legal nature of the letters meant they had to be formally sent to the property owners and Ms B and Mr X had known that the work required by the s215 notice, sent in 2017, remained outstanding.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman