Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to demolish part of the complainant’s wall. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained the Council removed a section of her garden wall. Ms X does not agree the wall was dangerous and says it should not have been removed without any notice. Ms X is also unhappy the Council has charged her for the removal. Ms X says the charge should be cancelled and she should be compensated for the damage to her garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The prime responsibility for the condition of a building or structure rests with its owner. However, councils have an obligation to deal with dangerous structures in their area.
5. The Council has the power under the London Building Act (Amendment Act) to take steps to remove a structure if it poses an immediate danger. The Act allows the Council to charge the owner for the expenses incurred.
6. In this case, the Council’s senior building control surveyor inspected the wall and decided it was dangerous and needed to be removed as it could not be left in its condition. I understand Ms X disagrees and says the wall was not dangerous. But the officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide immediate action was needed to remove the wall and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
7. There was a long delay before the Council sent Ms X an invoice for the cost of the work. But the Council has reduced the amount outstanding from £715.62 to £500 to reflect the delay. I consider this a suitable remedy in the circumstances, and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman