North Norfolk District Council (20 011 001)

Category : Housing > Private housing

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 19 Apr 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a neighbouring property. She says the Council’s actions have caused her significant distress. We do not find any fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a neighbouring property, which is causing her a nuisance. She says the Council’s actions have caused her significant distress, which has negatively affected her health, and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. 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)
  2. 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. 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. I spoke with Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
  2. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
  3. I sent a draft decision to Mrs X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation, guidance, and policy

Building Act 1984

  1. Section 78 of the Act notes if it appears to a local authority that:
      1. a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, is in such a state, or is used to carry such loads, as to be dangerous, and
      2. immediate action should be taken to remove the danger,

they may take such steps as may be necessary for that purpose.

  1. Section 79 of the Act notes if it appears to a local authority that a building or structure is by reason of its ruinous or dilapidated condition seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, the local authority may by notice require the owner thereof:
      1. to execute such works of repair or restoration, or
      2. if he so elects, to take such steps for demolishing the building or structure, or any part thereof, and removing any rubbish or other material resulting from or exposed by the demolition,

as may be necessary in the interests of amenity.

Council’s enforcement policy

  1. The Council’s policy notes that where breaches of the law exist, informal action may be taken in the first instance where the officer is satisfied informal action will be effective.
  2. Where informal action has not been successful, or where it is not considered appropriate, the Council may take formal action.

What happened

  1. Before Mrs X moved to the area, in 2018, a complaint was made about a neighbouring house, House A. The concerns were about noise of falling rubble coming from House A. There was also a concern about the front window falling out of its frame.
  2. The Council visited House A and the records show the officer was concerned about the window frame. It also highlighted there were some cracks in the brickwork to the rear of the house
  3. The Council wrote to the owner of House A in June 2018. The owner of House A did not live in the house full time as it was their second home.
  4. In its letter, the Council noted its concerns about the top floor window and asked for works to be carried out to remedy the external condition of the building. The Council said if the owner took no action to remedy, it may take enforcement action under Section 79 of the Buildings Act 1984.
  5. The Council’s records showed the owner of House A contacted the Council to confirm they had arranged for someone to check the window and to quote on works to repair it.
  6. In July 2018, the owner of House A updated the Council and advised the window was safe and that works would take place to the window.
  7. The Council closed the case following the update and wrote to the complainant to advise of this. The Council did not inspect the property before it closed the case. There was no evidence the complainant followed up with any further complaints to the Council. There was also no evidence of any concerns raised with the Council about the window or works not being completed.
  8. Mrs X moved to the area in 2019. In May 2020, Mrs X made a complaint to the Council about House A. She raised concerns about:
    • A vermin problem.
    • The back of House A was in danger of falling down.
    • Noise from rubble falling from House A.
    • Windowsill was split and moving.
  9. The Council visited House A and noted:
    • The front of the property did not stick out from the other houses in the street.
    • There was cracking to the rear wall and definite movement, but it was not immediately dangerous.
    • The rear garden was overgrown and there was potential for harbourage of vermin.
  10. In June 2020, the Council wrote to the owner of House A. The Council said it had concerns about the overgrown rear garden and concerns about the harbourage of vermin. The Council asked the owner to clear the garden and to arrange for a pest control survey. The Council acknowledged the COVID-19 restrictions limited the owner’s ability to come to the property to complete the works.
  11. The Council also confirmed:
    • It had assessed the cracking bricks and chimney breast. The Council did not consider the building was imminently dangerous or unsafe. However, it was a cause for concern, and it was in the owner’s best interest to repair these structures to prevent further movement.
    • That if the structures were to become unsafe in the future, The Council could require them to take immediate action to make the structure safe.
  12. In July 2020, the Council told Mrs X it did not consider the condition of House A to be imminently dangerous or ruinous and dilapidated, but agreed the cracking was a concern. As a result, the Council advised it did not have any enforcement powers to require any repairs be carried out by the owner of House A.
  13. The Council told Mrs X it could take formal enforcement action against the owner of House A with regards to the issue of vermin due to the garden being very overgrown. However, the Council explained it would first follow its policy to take informal action and to allow the owner the opportunity to clear the garden.
  14. The Council also advised Mrs X of the matters that were a civil dispute between her and the owner of House A. The Council confirmed it could not assist Mrs X with the civil dispute.
  15. Near the end of July 2020, the Council received a structural report about House A from another neighbouring property. The structural report noted it was an external survey only and raised the following:
    • The dormer windows to the front and rear were in very poor condition, with signs of rot. Survey noted the dormer structures could become unstable at some point in the future.
    • There were several cracks within the rear brickwork. However, while the external walls were in very poor condition, they were not considered to be structurally unsafe.
    • House A needed significant maintenance in the near future to avoid it becoming uninhabitable and potentially unsafe.
  16. The Council considered the structural report and noted the report reached the same conclusion as the Council that House A was not a structure that was imminently dangerous. The Council also noted the report highlighted concerns about the dormer windows, but they were not in a location that would pose a threat to the safety of the public. The Council said because of this there were no enforcement powers available to it to require the repairs. The Council also said the owners of House A had advised the Council they intended to complete maintenance work to the property.
  17. Throughout June and July 2020, the Council received updates from the owner of House A on the works completed to the garden.
  18. In August 2020, the Council visited House A to inspect the garden. The Council also arranged for an animal control officer to inspect the garden for signs of vermin. The Council was satisfied with the works completed and closed the case.
  19. In September 2020, the Council wrote to Mrs X to tell her of the Council’s decision to close the case. The Council told Mrs X House A was not in imminent danger of collapse. Therefore, there were no enforcement powers available to the Council to require the owner complete maintenance work to House A. The Council confirmed a survey completed by its animal control officer decided there were no vermin infestation and the works completed to the garden significantly reduced the likelihood of vermin harbourage.
  20. Near the end of September 2020, Mrs X contacted the Council about damage to House A caused by a storm. Mrs X raised concerns about failing roof tiles and that an aerial would fall. Mrs X provided us with evidence she contacted the fire department about the aerial.
  21. The Council visited House A to investigate Mrs X’s concerns. The Council said the aerial had been removed and so was not a risk. The Council told Mrs X House A was not in imminent danger of collapse and that it had advised the owner of the storm damage.
  22. In March and April 2021, the owner of House A updated the Council on the works it had completed on the house. The Council received a further update in November 2021.

Analysis

2018

  1. The action the Council took in 2018 happened before Mrs X lived in the area. Mrs X said if the Council had taken appropriate action in 2018, she would not be in the situation she is in now.
  2. The evidence shows the Council took informal action against the owner of House A by asking them to complete works to repair the external condition of the building. In particular, the front window. This was in line with the Council’s enforcement policy as it does encourage informal action first.
  3. The Council received an update from the owner of House A confirming works they had completed to make improvements to the window. There is no evidence the Council visited the property to confirm the improvements were made. It would have been good practice for the Council to have done so to satisfy itself the works had been completed.
  4. However, the Council wrote to the original complainant who raised the concerns about House A to inform them of the decision to close the case. If the improvement works had not been completed satisfactorily, or had not been completed, it would have been reasonable for the complainant to raise their concerns with the Council.
  5. Given the Council had no evidence or reason to suspect the works had not been completed, we consider the Council was entitled to decide it was satisfied with the owner’s update. We also note the Council’s enforcement policy does not require officers to revisit and complete inspections before closing a case. Further, the policy gives discretion to officers to decide informal action is effective.
  6. Therefore, we do not find the Council was at fault for closing the case without visiting House A to confirm the works had been completed.

2020

  1. Again, there is clear evidence the Council took informal action against the owner of House A in 2020 following Mrs X’s complaints. This was in line with the Council’s policy as it states the Council will first take informal action.
  2. There is clear evidence of the owner’s engagement and cooperation with the Council throughout 2020. It is also clear they were completing works to clear the garden. We consider it was reasonable for the Council to allow the owner some time to complete the works, especially given the circumstances of the restrictions in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  3. The Council revisited House A to confirm the owner had completed the works and to confirm there were no vermin infestation. The Council was satisfied following its visit.
  4. As above, it is for the Council to consider the evidence to decide whether the informal action has been effective. In this case, the evidence supports the Council considered all relevant information before deciding it was satisfied the owner had complied with its requests about the garden. Therefore, it was not necessary to take any formal enforcement action. As the Council made its decision properly, we cannot find fault with the decision itself.
  5. The law is clear that it is for the Council to decide whether a building or structure is in such a state to be dangerous and where immediate action is needed to remove the danger.
  6. The records showed the Council considered House A was not imminently dangerous. Where the Council received further evidence, such as the surveyor’s report provided by another neighbour and the later concerns about the falling roof tiles and aerial, the Council appropriately considered them. Therefore, Council was entitled to decide that it remained satisfied the house was not imminently dangerous as it made its decision properly.
  7. As the Council decided the house was not imminently dangerous, we agree the Council did not have any formal enforcement powers available to it. The Council had discretion to take informal action to advise the owner of House A of the concerns. The evidence shows the Council took this approach.
  8. Throughout 2020, the evidence shows the Council appropriately updated Mrs X on its decisions, rationale, and action taken.
  9. Therefore, we are satisfied the Council has acted in line with its policy and legislation when dealing with Mrs X’s concerns about House A in 2020.

2021

  1. As stated above, the Council decided House A was not imminently dangerous. Therefore, the Council has no formal enforcement powers to force the owner to repair the property. However, the Council has taken informal action to encourage the improvement works.
  2. The evidence shows this has largely been successful as the owner has completed several works to address the concerns and to make repairs to the house.
  3. Therefore, the Council has done as much as it can to encourage the improvement works in line with its policy. We cannot find fault with the Council’s actions just because Mrs X would like the Council to do more.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We find no fault with the Council’s actions. Therefore, we have completed our investigation.

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