Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council was wrong to treat a dangerous structure on his land as an emergency and to carry out works to it without first giving Mr X the opportunity or applying to the magistrates’ court for permission. This is because the court is better placed to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council carried out unnecessary emergency work to a ‘dangerous structure’ on his land and has charged him more than 10 times the amount he had agreed to pay a local building company for the work.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Section 77 of the Building Act 1984 gives the Council powers to deal with dangerous structures on private land. In order to use these powers the Council must first apply to the magistrates’ court for an Order allowing it to take action.
6. Section 78 of the Building Act 1984 allows the Council to take emergency measures to deal with dangerous structures without first applying to the magistrates’ court.
7. The Council told Mr X he needed to take action to deal with a dangerous structure on his land while he was on holiday in 2022 and Mr X contacted a local building company who agreed to carry out the work for £150. But the Council considered the work an emergency and instructed a contractor to do it straight away. The contractor then sent Mr X an invoice for more than £1,500. Mr X disputes the amount of the invoice and the need for the work to be carried out as an emergency.
8. While Mr X is clearly aggrieved by the Council’s actions the courts are better placed to consider whether they were correct. Section 78(5) of the Building Act 1984 allows the court, as part of proceedings by the Council to recover expenses, to inquire whether the Council “might reasonably have proceeded instead under [section 77(1) of the Act], and, if the court determines that the local authority might reasonable have proceeded instead under that subsection, the local authority shall not recover the expenses or any part of them.”
9. We cannot question the Council’s judgement on this point and we therefore consider the courts are better placed to deal with the issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the courts are better placed to determine whether the Council was correct to carry out emergency works without first allowing Mr X an opportunity to do them himself.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman