Summary: Mr X complained about the Council failing to maintain derelict houses which it owns following a threat of serving a notice against him in the past for failing to maintain similar properties. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which the complainant was aware of several years before the 12-month time limit for receiving complaints.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council failing to maintain the appearance of derelict houses which it owns. He says that the Council threatened him with court action nine years ago when properties he owned were derelict awaiting demolition. He believes the Council should have maintained its houses for the past seven years and says it should pay him £400 for the efforts which he had to make nine years ago.

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says he owned two houses nine years ago which were derelict due to subsidence and which he intended to demolish. The Council at the time told him he needed to secure his properties and make them presentable or it could serve a notice on him to do so or charge him for the works in default.
6. He says that seven years ago he drew the Council’s attention to two of its own properties which were derelict following plans for a highway scheme which would involve their demolition. He said at the time that the Council should apply its standards fairly and that it should maintain these properties to be used as housing.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints about matters which a complainant has been aware of for more than 12 months before they complained to us. This applied to Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s threat against him 9 years ago. We will not exercise our discretion to consider the matter now because he could have appealed any Council notice against him at the time to the Magistrates Court.
8. We will not consider his complaint about the council’s own properties because it says they have been used for tenants and as a site office since he complained seven years ago and that they have been secured against access by trespassers when not occupied. This matter is also out of time because he was aware of the houses being empty several years ago. The houses are subject to plans for housing redevelopment when issues with the site infrastructure are resolved. There is no evidence of any direct injustice to Mr X caused by the use of the houses which are not near his home.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which the complainant was aware of several years before the 12-month time limit for receiving complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman