Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to the removal of a wall or safety concerns raised about a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his concerns about the safety of building works next to his home. He says the development has damaged his property. Mr X also complains about the Council’s actions in relation to the removal of a wall that it claimed was dangerous.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under sections 77 and 78 of the Building Act 1984 the Council has the power to ‘make safe’ buildings or structures which it considers dangerous. The Council can apply to a magistrate’s court for an order requiring the owner of the building or structure to carry out works necessary to remove the danger or restrict its use.
7. Mr X says the Council allowed contractors working on the development next door to his home to remove a wall on the basis it was dangerous. Mr X disputes the wall was dangerous and says the Council failed to follow the correct process. The Council says it did not take formal action in relation to the wall as the owner was already undertaking remedial works to remove the potential dangers.
8. Mr X says the wall was on his property and therefore the contractors did not have authority to remove it. He says the Council allowed the contractors to destroy the wall as it would make ongoing building works for the development easier. But the Council visited the site shortly after the initial works started and decided the wall was at risk of collapse. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.
9. I understand there is a dispute regarding who owns the wall. Mr X says the wall is on his property. However, the Council says it did not need to notify Mr X before the wall was removed as the owners (Mr X’s neighbours) were already carrying out works to the wall. I do not know who owns the wall, but it is not for the Council to get involved in land ownership disputes as this will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
10. Mr X also says the removal of the wall, and the building works being carried out to the development, have caused damage to the boundary wall that runs between his home and the development site. But the Ombudsman would not usually investigate complaints about damage to a person’s property because of works carried out by a third party as this would also be a private civil matter between Mr X and the developer.
11. Mr X says he believes the ongoing works to the new building are unsafe. But the building will be subject to building regulation approval. The Council has confirmed that works have been inspected as the development progresses.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman