Summary: Mr X and Miss Y complained about the Council’s actions in relation to a derelict building near their home. The Council was at fault for failing to reach a decision about the future of the building. It has agreed to remedy Mr X and Miss Y’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Miss Y complained the Council failed to maintain an empty Council-owned building. They said this resulted in it being vandalised. Mr X and Miss Y live close to the building and say it is an eyesore and has devalued their home. They want the Council to demolish the building.

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’. 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)
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

4. I have considered Mr X and Miss Y’s complaint and supporting information and have spoken to them about the complaint.
5. I have considered the Council’s response to Mr X and Miss Y and to my enquiries.
6. Mr X, Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

History of the building

7. In 1955, the Council leased the building to an organisation on a long 75 year lease. The lease required the organisation to maintain the building for this period (until 2030). In 2006, the Council agreed to the organisation’s request to surrender the lease. Mr X and Miss Y said it was reasonable for the local residents to expect the Council to continue to repair and maintain the building to the same standards as the lease expected.
8. The Council admitted that it did not assign any budget for the upkeep of the building when it took control of it in 2006.
9. In 2020, vandals set fire to the building. This destroyed the roof.

The complaint

10. Mr X and Miss Y complained to the Council in November 2020. They said the Council did not maintain the building. Instead, it allowed it to fall into a serious state of disrepair, dereliction and dilapidation. They said it attracts vandalism and criminal behaviour.

February 2021 committee meeting

11. The Council held a committee meeting in Feb 2021. The future of the building was discussed including options to either demolish or repair and reoccupy it. The Committee agreed that officers should explore any further interest within the community to use the building over the next three months and pursue funds to demolish the building.
12. In March, the Council responded to Mr X and Miss Y’s complaint. It explained how the Council was handling the matter, based on the discussions at the February Committee meeting. Mr X and Miss Y were not satisfied the Council had identified timescales for the proposed actions. The Council did not respond to Mr X and Miss Y’s request to escalate their complaint nor to provide a clear timescale.

October 2021 committee meeting

13. The matter was not on the agenda at the next committee meeting in July. At a committee meeting in October 2021, officers reported that no group had come forward to take over the building’s lease. They also reported that a local action group supported the proposal to demolish the building, and Ward members understood this to be the best course of action. The committee report also recognised if the building was to be left in its current condition, it would pose a risk to the public. The meeting’s minutes suggested a local group expressed a wish to save the building and therefore the decision was deferred to a future special meeting.

January 2022 committee meeting

14. The Council said it arranged a meeting for December 2021, but this was cancelled due to officer and member availability. The Council included the matter as the main agenda item for a meeting in January 2022.
15. The Council invited Mr X and Miss Y to the meeting. Mr X and Miss Y spoke at the meeting. They made the point that any decision by the committee should include a timetable/deadline for actioning the decision, and the process should be monitored for progress.
16. The Council said its insurance fund would pay for the demolition costs. It also said it would take approximately 12 weeks for preliminary work including the safe cutting off of services to be carried out before demolition could begin.
17. The Council voted to demolish the building. Mr X and Miss Y were satisfied with this outcome. However, they remain concerned about potential time slippage and the lack of a clear timetable or project plan.

Analysis

18. The Council delayed making a decision on the future of the building. After the arson attack and Mr X and Miss Y’s subsequent complaint, the Council took a year to reach the decision to demolish with the committee meeting three times.
19. I have seen insufficient evidence the Council was actively trying to identify an alternative occupier for the building during this time. Although this was given as the reason for the committee deferring a decision in February and October.
20. The presence of the building in its current state along with the threat of further anti-social behaviour affected Mr X and Miss Y’s amenity. The lack of a decision by the Council caused them uncertainty. They worried about the impact of the value of their house. Although speculative, it is understandable they would feel this way.
21. The Council reached a decision in January, however, I can understand Mr X and Miss Y’s concerns regarding a lack of a timetable. The Council agreed to prepare a timetable and provide evidence of the funding to demonstrate its commitment to demolishing the building.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr X and Miss Y for the delay in reaching a decision about the future of the building.
23. Within 12 weeks of my decision, the Council will:
1. Prepare a clear timetable for the demolition of the building;
2. Confirm how the demolition work will be funded

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for delaying reaching a decision about the future of the building. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Miss Y for the delay and provide a clear timetable and evidence of funds.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

25. I have not considered the Council’s decision to accept the organisation’s surrender of the lease in 2006. I have not considered the Council’s alleged failure to maintain the building before Mr X and Miss Y complained. These matters are beyond the timescales we would investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman