Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s demolition of Ms X’s wall and its delayed invoice for the work. This is because the demolition happened too long ago to be investigated now and there is insufficient injustice caused to Ms X by the delayed invoice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says she was caused upset and stress by receipt of an invoice from the Council nearly two years after it had demolished part of her wall because it had been deemed to be unsafe. She wants the Council to cancel the invoice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s responses to her complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2019 the Council demolished part of Ms X’s wall because it was unsafe. Ms X says her husband heard the wall being demolished at the time but that the Council made no attempt to contact them prior to acting. Nearly two years after the demolition, Ms X received an invoice from the Council for her share of the cost of the work
8. In responding to Ms X’s complaint about this matter, the Council advised that the case officer had knocked on the doors of Ms X and her neighbour at the time and that it had not needed consent to carry out the demolition due to the state of the wall. It apologised for the late invoice but confirmed the debt was payable.
9. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Ms X’s complaint. She knew in 2019 that the wall had been demolished and could have raised a complaint about this matter sooner. While the invoice was late in being sent out by the Council, it is collecting payment for work it carried out and is entitled to receive and there is insufficient injustice caused to Ms X by its late arrival to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the demolition happened too long ago to be investigated now and there is insufficient injustice caused to Ms X by the delayed invoice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman